Does a Will Witness Need to Know What They’re Signing?

Does a Will Witness Need to Know What They’re Signing?

by | Last updated Jul 8, 2025 | Contesting wills, Grounds, Inheritance, Probate, Wills

Your inheritance. Let’s keep it yours!

TL;DR Imagine this: You write a will to protect your family, but after you’re gone, a courtroom battle erupts because one witness didn’t know they were signing a will. Sounds crazy, right? That’s exactly what happened in the Estate of Chester Freeman Youngblood—a case that left two Debras fighting over which will was valid. Here’s the wild story, what the court got wrong, and how you can avoid this mess.

A Texas Court Case Just Revealed a Surprising Truth About Your Will. Are You Making This Mistake?

Imagine a family wrestling with grief after a loved one passes, only to find themselves in a legal tug-of-war. That’s exactly what happened to the family of Chester Freeman Youngblood, a 90-year-old WWII veteran. His story, which recently unfolded in a Texas appeals court, has a critical lesson for every single person who has a will or is thinking about making one.

Two Wills, Two Sides of the Family

When Chester passed away, two different wills came to light. His wife, Debby Kay, produced a will from 2009. But Chester’s daughter and granddaughter from a previous marriage, Debra Ann and Tyra, came forward with a newer will from 2016 that revoked the old one. This set the stage for a classic inheritance dispute: which will was the real one?

The whole fight boiled down to one key moment: the signing of the 2016 will. One of the witnesses, a neighbor named Gary Pastwa, was called to testify. When asked about the signing, which had happened eight years prior, he honestly couldn’t remember if Chester had said the words, “This is my will.” He just knew he was asked to witness Chester’s signature on a document.

The first judge heard this and made a drastic decision: he threw out the 2016 will. He declared that under Texas law, a witness must know they are witnessing a will for it to be valid.

The Surprising Twist That Changes Everything

The case went to the Court of Appeals, which looked at the law and came to a completely different conclusion. They overturned the first judge’s decision, and here’s why this matters for you:

In Texas, a witness does NOT need to know they are signing a will.

The law only requires that they see the person (the testator) sign the document. The witness’s job is to witness the signature, not to understand the legal document itself.

What Saved Chester’s Final Wishes?

So what saved the 2016 will? A small, often overlooked paragraph called an “attestation clause.” This clause, which the witness Gary Pastwa signed back in 2016, stated that he saw Chester sign the document and that Chester had declared it to be his will. The appeals court ruled that this written, notarized statement from the day of the signing was far more powerful and reliable than a witness’s faded memory eight years later.

How to Prevent This From Happening to Your Family

This family spent years and likely a lot of money in court because of a simple misunderstanding of the law and a witness’s foggy memory. Here’s what we can learn:

  1. Don’t Rely on Memory: The paperwork is king. The attestation clause and a self-proving affidavit (a separate statement where you and your witnesses swear to a notary that everything was done right) are your will’s best friends. They create a strong presumption that your will is valid.
  2. A Little Ceremony Goes a Long Way: While the law may not require it, you should absolutely tell your witnesses what they are signing. Say it out loud: “This is my last will and testament, and I am asking you to witness my signature.” This simple step can prevent immense confusion and conflict down the line.
  3. Act Promptly: The family members with the 2016 will waited several years to file it. While the court allowed it, delays can create suspicion and complicate the process.

Chester Youngblood did the right thing by having his will properly witnessed and notarized. That formal process is what ultimately ensured his final wishes were honored, even after a long court battle.

Share this post

If you found this information helpful, please share this post with others dealing with similar probate issues. Have questions or personal experiences with will disputes? If you’re facing a legal battle over the validity of a will, consider consulting with a legal professional specializing in probate litigation to ensure your rights are protected.

Texas-Sized Trouble: Why Venue Matters in Your Inheritance Dispute

Texas-Sized Trouble: Why Venue Matters in Your Inheritance Dispute

by | Last updated Sep 8, 2025 | Contesting Wills, Contesting wills, Grounds, How to probate a case, Probate, Procedure

TL;DR Key Takeaways :

In Texas, where you file your inheritance dispute (venue) matters A LOT. Picking the wrong court can cause delays, waste money, and even get your case dismissed. If you’re involved in a Texas inheritance dispute, talk to a lawyer ASAP to make sure you file in the right place.

Understanding Venue in Texas

What is Venue? (And Why Does it Matter in Texas?)

Venue means the location of a legal action. Where will the parties and witnesses have to go to court? Texas Civil Procedure Rules: Rule 86 sets out the method of challenging venue. Inheritance disputes are treated like any other lawsuit, so venue is essential.

Because Texas is so vast, a person who lives in Houston does not want to try a case in El Paso or vice versa. While there may be situations where you don’t have a choice about venue, knowing the Texas venue rules is important because failure to act quickly can waive your venue rights.

Factors Determining Proper Venue in Texas Inheritance Cases

The Texas Estates Code sets out the venue rules for inheritance disputes in §33.001. If the decedent had a domicile or fixed place of residence, venue for probate proceedings is in the county where the decedent resided. See Tex. Est. Code Ann. § 33.001(a)(1). If the decedent did not have a domicile or fixed place of residence, venue for probate proceedings is in the county where the decedent’s principal estate was located at the time of death or the county where the decedent died. See id. § 33.001(a)(2)(A).

Consequences of Improper Venue

If a probate matter is filed in an improper county, it is necessary to raise the venue question immediately. If you wait to file a motion to transfer venue, you could waive the issue and end up with an inheritance dispute in a county that is the wrong county or is inconvenient to you. Imagine if you live in Houston but have to go to El Paso when you need to be present in court!

When to raise the venue issue

The Texas rules require you to raise the issue of improper venue as your first pleading in court, and if you don’t, you can waive the issue. For example, let’s say you had a loved one pass away. You learn that a person in another county has filed a will for probate that you believe resulted from undue influence or was made when your loved one didn’t have testamentary capacity. Your witnesses are all elderly and in your county.  Traveling to another county will burden your case, so you want venue to be in the correct county. Venue questions are required to be raised as your first pleading.

The following case shows the problems of not acting promptly.

In the Estate of Chrisbristow, one of the parties complained to the appeals court that venue had been improper when the case was tried and that the case should be reversed. The Court of Appeals denied her objection to venue because she did not raise it in her first pleading. Instead, she waited until after she had filed other pleadings before raising the venue issue.  The proper venue can be waived!

How an Experienced Texas Probate Attorney Can Help

Because venue is critical and must be raised immediately, an experienced attorney can provide sound legal advice on your options.

Share this post

If you found this information helpful, please share this post with others dealing with similar probate issues. Have questions or personal experiences with will disputes? If you’re facing a legal battle over the validity of a will, consider consulting with a legal professional specializing in probate litigation to ensure your rights are protected.

Texas Slayer Rule

Texas Slayer Rule

by | Last updated Feb 10, 2025 | Contesting Wills, Contesting wills, Grounds, Inheritance, Procedure, Time limits, Who inherits

Can Murderers Inherit in Texas? Understanding the Texas Slayer Rule

Quick Facts Box

  • Texas has no automatic “Slayer Statute”
  • Murderers can potentially inherit unless stopped
  • Courts can use “constructive trusts” to prevent inheritance
  • Action must be taken by interested parties
  • Different from most other U.S. states

What is the Slayer Rule or Statute?

Imagine someone kills a family member and then tries to claim their money and property. In most states, laws called “Slayer Rules or Statutes” automatically stop killers from inheriting from their victims. For example, if a son murders his parents, these laws would prevent him from receiving any inheritance from them.

How the Texas Slayer Rule is Different

Texas stands out from other states because it doesn’t have a law that automatically stops killers from inheriting. This unusual situation comes from two important sources:

  1. The Texas Constitution (Article 1, Section 21) says that no criminal conviction can cause someone to lose their inheritance rights.
  2. The Texas Estates Code (Section 201.058) reinforces this rule, stating that criminal convictions cannot stop someone from inheriting property.

How Can Families Stop a Murderer from Inheriting?

In Texas, family members must take specific steps to prevent a killer from inheriting:

  1. File a Court Action: Someone with a legal interest in the case must go to court
  2. Request a Constructive Trust: This is a special legal tool that helps prevent unfair situations
  3. Prove Their Case: The family must show why the trust is needed

Understanding Constructive Trusts

Think of a constructive trust like a special box that holds property:

  • The killer technically owns the property (legal owner)
  • But they must hold it for someone else’s benefit (beneficial owner)
  • The court decides who really gets to use and benefit from the property

What Happens If No One Takes Action?

Here’s the surprising part – if no one goes to court to stop it:

  • The killer can inherit the victim’s property
  • There’s no automatic prevention
  • The inheritance proceeds as if it were a normal case

Who Can Take Action Under the Texas Slayer Rule?

A person who would inherit if the murderer predeceased the victim can take action. This includes the victim’s child, brother or sister, parent, cousin, or someone named in a will.

Real Texas Case Example

In one important case on the Texas Slayer Rule, even though family members tried to stop a killer from inheriting:

  • They asked the court for a constructive trust
  • But they didn’t prove all the required legal points
  • The court had to let the killer inherit the property
  • This shows how important it is to handle these cases correctly

What Should Families Do?

If you’re dealing with a situation under the Texas Slayer Rule:

  1. Act quickly
  2. Contact us or another legal professional
  3. Gather evidence
  4. File for a constructive trust
  5. Be prepared to prove your case

Key Takeaways

  • Texas handles killer inheritance cases differently than most states
  • No automatic protection exists under the Texas Slayer Rule
  • Family members or interested persons must take active steps
  • Time is critical
  • Professional legal help is usually needed

This unique approach to the Slayer Rule makes Texas law different from most other states. Understanding these differences is crucial for anyone dealing with such unfortunate situations.

Other Articles

I have written other articles on Texas Slayer Rule here, here, here, and here. Please review these for additional information.

What You Need to Know about the Burden of Proof in Contesting a Will

What You Need to Know about the Burden of Proof in Contesting a Will

by | Last updated Feb 13, 2024 | Contesting Wills, Contesting wills, Grounds, How, Probate, Procedure, Time limits

Will Contest in Texas

In Texas, when someone dies, they may leave behind a will. Sometimes, people may disagree about what the will says or whether it is valid. Then, they may go to court to ask a judge to decide. Who has the burden of proof at this stage can be important.

This is what happened in a case called Castello v. Castello, 03-22-00012-CV. In this case, a man named Frank Castello died in 2018. He had a wife named Cindy and three children from a previous marriage. He also had a will that he made in 2012. In his will, he said that he wanted to give his wife the right to use his property for her life, but after she died, he wanted his children to get everything. He also chose his son Mark to be the executor of his will. The executor is the person who is in charge of carrying out the will.

The Contest in Castello

Cindy contested the will. She said that Frank did not have the mental ability to make a will in 2012. She said that he had a stroke in 2006 and that his condition got worse after that. She said that he could not remember things, recognize people, or make decisions for himself. She also said that she had another will that Frank made in 2009. In that will, he gave her more property and less to his children. Cindy wanted the 2009 will admitted to probate.

Mark said that Frank did have the mental ability to make a will in 2012. He said that he talked to Frank about his wishes and that Frank understood what he was doing. He also said that the will was signed by Frank and two witnesses who said that Frank was of sound mind. He asked the court to admit the 2012 will to probate. Probate is the process of proving that a will is valid and following its instructions. Who had the burden of proof would be important in deciding this case.

Trial Court Decision

The trial court had to decide who was right. The court looked at the evidence that both sides presented. Mark had the 2012 will, the affidavit of the lawyer who drafted the will, and a deed that showed that Frank sold some property in 2012. Cindy had her own affidavit and some parts of the lawyer’s deposition. A deposition is when someone answers questions under oath before the trial.

The trial court ruled that Mark was right. The court said that the 2012 will was valid and that Frank had the mental ability to make it. The court said that Cindy’s evidence was not enough to show that Frank was not capable of making a will. The court admitted the 2012 will to probate and dismissed Cindy’s claim.

The Appeal – Burden of Proof

Cindy was not happy with the court’s decision. She appealed to a higher court. She said that the lower court made a mistake. She said that she did have enough evidence to show that Frank did not have the mental ability to make a will in 2012. She said that the court should have let a jury decide the case.

The higher court agreed with Cindy. The higher court said that Cindy’s evidence did show that there was a question of fact about Frank’s mental ability. A question of fact is something that is not clear, and that needs to be decided by a jury. The higher court said that Cindy’s evidence showed that Frank’s physical and mental health had been declining since his stroke in 2006 and that he had Alzheimer’s disease, memory problems, and confusion. The higher court said that this evidence could be used to show that Frank did not have the mental ability to make a will in 2012. The higher court said that the lower court should not have decided the case by itself. The higher court said that the case should go to a jury trial. A jury trial is when a group of people listen to the evidence and decide who is right.

The higher court reversed the lower court’s decision and sent the case back for a jury trial. The case is not over yet. Cindy and Mark will have to present their evidence to a jury and let them decide who gets what after Frank died.

Burden of Proof

The higher court based its opinion on who had the burden of proof. The proponent, Mark, had the burden of proof if the will was contested before it was admitted to probate. Cindy would have the burden of proof if the will was contested after the will was admitted to probate. Because the will was contested before it was admitted to probate, Mark had the burden of proof. Since Cindy put on some evidence of mental incapacity, the trial court was wrong to grant a summary judgment without a jury trial.

Lesson to be learned

A person thinking about contesting a will needs to act quickly. Cindy contested the will early, before it was admitted to probate, and therefore, Mark had the burden. If Cindy had waited until the will was admitted to probate, she would have the burden of proof to show lack of mental capacity. Her evidence may not have met the burden of proof standard.

Void Versus Voidable Marriages

Void Versus Voidable Marriages

by | Last updated Sep 5, 2023 | Contesting wills, Grounds, Probate, Spouse, Time limits

Void versus Voidable

In a recent Texas case, Allebach v. Gollub, 14-22-00272-CV, the issue of void versus voidable marriages came up. There is a difference in the way the courts treat void marriages as opposed to voidable marriages. A void marriage is just that, void. A voidable marriage is one that can be declared void but someone must take some action to get it voided.

A man remarried after his wife died. When the man died, the new wife filed a new will for probate that left most of his estate to her. The Man’s children from the first marriage contested the will on the basis that the man lacked the testamentary capacity to make a new will. They also alleged that the marriage to the new wife was void. It was void, according to them, because the new wife was the daughter of their father’s biological sister – she was his niece. The new wife said the children were too late to contest the marriage because they didn’t complain about the new marriage until four years after the man died.

Is it too late?

There is a provision in the Texas estates code, §123.102, that says an interested party must contest a marriage within three years of the date of death of the Decedent. The subchapter is titled “Proceeding to Void Marriage Based on Mental Capacity Pending at Time of Death.”

The new wife said that this provision applied and since the children had not filed their motion to void the marriage within three years, the limitations of that provision applied and they were too late.

The court examined §123.102 and found that it applied to voidable marriages but not void marriages. The court explained that the marriage to a close relative was void and not voidable. Different rules are applied to void marriages. The court pointed out that:

And under our common law, such suits may be brought “by anyone, at any time, directly or collaterally.” See Simpson v. Neely, 221 S.W.2d 303, 308 (Tex. App.-Waco 1949, writ ref’d)…Thus, the limitations provision contained within Section 123.102 should only be understood to apply to a challenge to a marriage made voidable on the ground of mental incapacity. This understanding comports with the plain language of the statute, and it also preserves the longstanding common law rule that challenges to void marriages are not subject to limitations.

When you need to contest a marriage of someone who dies, you have to know the difference between void versus voidable marriages. If the marriage is void, as it was here, it can be contested at any time by anybody. However, if you are contesting the marriage because a person lacks mental capacity, you have to contest it within three years of that person’s deat.

How bad people use undue influence

How bad people use undue influence

by | Last updated Dec 12, 2020 | Contesting Wills, Grounds, Undue Influence

This article is about ways that people exert undue influence in Texas to obtain the property or estate of others.

Undue influence can take many forms. In a 2020 Texas case, Buford, a man with a below average IQ hired a private investigator, Tait, whose name he found in a phone book, to help him. Tait’s assistant was Irene Rueda.

Undue influence example. Tait and Rueda soon began providing Buford with other services, including cleaning, cooking, bill paying, shopping, and running errands. In fact, Rueda testified that she saw Buford almost every day for three years until his death in August of 2015. During these three years, Tait and Rueda submitted numerous invoices to Buford, billing him tens of thousands of dollars for their investigation and other services. In addition, Buford gave both Tait, Rueda, and their family members bonuses and gifts, including a $5,000.00 gift to Tait’s wife, despite the fact that Buford had admittedly never met his wife. In addition, the record contains evidence that Buford made large cash withdrawals from his account during the time that Tait and Rueda were providing services to him, some of which were signed by Tait, acting on Buford’s behalf.

Tait prepared wills

Buford did not have a will when he first met Tait and Rueda. Several wills were prepared by Tait and signed or written out by Buford. The will gave Tait and Rueda all of the real and personal property and $300,000 to Tait and $200,000 to Rueda. The total value was about 2.4 million dollars.

When the will was filed for probate, the cousins of Buford, his closest relatives, contested it. The jury ruled that the will were written under undue influence. Tait and Rueda appealed.

The appeals court, in addition to the above facts, set out the evidence supporting the jury verdict including:

  • Emails from Tait the he was “working” on Buford to make a will.
  • Bills from Tait for helping Buford prepare his will.
  • Tait had taken over virtually all of Buford’s legal affairs.
  • Tait accompanied Buford to every meeting with others.
  • Tait himself admitted that he could influence Buford to add provisions to his will.
  • After making the first will, Buford told someone that he had not yet decided what to do with his property.

Every case is different but undue influence is based on the overall conduct that is taking place and who benefits from it.

If you believe a loved one has been the subject of undue influence, you must act quickly. Remember, the two year statute of limitations for contesting a will doesn’t change even if the will is the result of undue influence.

Undue Influence in Texas can Invalidate Wills, Deeds, and Other Instruments

Relationship Poisoning And Undue Influence

Pin It on Pinterest