Texas Inheritance Dispute Mistake: Why a Former Judge’s Testimony Killed the Case

Texas Inheritance Dispute Mistake: Why a Former Judge’s Testimony Killed the Case

by | Last updated Nov 7, 2025 | Inheritance, Spouse

Your inheritance. Let’s keep it yours!

TL;DR A woman claimed she was a common-law wife to get an inheritance. Her lawyers brought in a former judge as an expert who told the jury how she’d rule. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the verdict because common-law marriage is simple enough for regular jurors, and using a judge as an expert threatens judicial integrity and trial fairness. Contact us today for a consultation and let us help you resolve your inheritance challenges. Explore our website for more information and resources on inheritance disputes.

The Texas Inheritance Dispute Mistake That Forced a New Trial

What if you lost your dad’s estate—not because the facts were against you, but because the other side brought in a former judge to tell the jury what to think? That’s exactly what went down in a recent Texas Supreme Court case, and the whole thing got tossed out. Here’s why this matters if you’re in any kind of inheritance fight. (Estate of Lopez, No. 24-0315.

What Happened in This Family Mess

Guadalupe Lopez Sr. passed away, and his three kids expected to inherit. Then Elvira Gonzalez showed up, claiming she’d been his common-law wife for years. Her lawyers didn’t just bring photos and documents. They flew in a former family court judge as an “expert witness.”
This ex-judge told the jury she’d presided over 5,000 family cases and, based on her experience, Gonzalez definitely qualified as a common-law spouse. She even said she was “wearing her judge’s hat” when she formed this opinion. The jury bought it. They ruled Gonzalez was the wife. The kids lost.

Why the Supreme Court Said “Nope, Try Again”

The Texas Supreme Court looked at this circus and said the trial court blew it by letting that testimony in. Two big problems stood out.

You Don’t Need a Genius to Understand Common-Law Marriage

In Texas, you only need three things to prove a common-law marriage: you agreed to be married, you lived together as spouses, and you told people you were married. That’s it. Regular folks on a jury can figure this out over coffee. The Supreme Court said the judge’s opinion didn’t “help” the jury—it just told them how to vote.

Judges Shouldn’t Become Hired Guns

A former judge carries automatic respect. When she says “here’s what I’d rule,” jurors listen differently. The Supreme Court worried this threatens everyone’s trust in the entire judicial system. Judges are supposed to be neutral referees, not weaponized experts for hire.

How to Dodge This Texas Inheritance Dispute Mistake

This whole expensive disaster could’ve been avoided.

Let Your Evidence Talk, Not Your Expert’s Title

Gonzalez’s team actually had decent proof: photos of Lopez Sr. wearing a wedding ring, invitations listing them as “Mr. & Mrs.,” and documents showing them as married. They should’ve presented these through regular witnesses who knew the couple. Let the jury connect the dots themselves.

Vet Your “Expert” Hype

Before you hire any expert, ask your lawyer: “Will this person explain something truly complicated, or just give a pricey opinion on something obvious?” If it’s the latter, save your cash. And be extra careful with former judges—jurors treat them like superheroes, which creates massive risk on appeal.
The Supreme Court ordered a complete do-over. That means everyone pays more legal fees and endures more stress.

What You Should Do Instead

If you’re staring down an inheritance dispute:
  • Focus on clear, simple documents like deeds, tax forms, and bank records
  • Use credible everyday witnesses—neighbors, friends, family who actually saw the relationship
  • Keep former judges far away from the witness stand
  • Make sure your lawyer objects to improper expert testimony early and loudly
The Lopez kids eventually won their appeal, but only after years of litigation and expense. Don’t let the Texas inheritance dispute mistake of relying on an expert’s fancy title instead of solid facts derail your case. The law cares about truth, not star power.

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.

[dsm_social_share_buttons _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][dsm_social_share_buttons_child dsm_network=”email” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][/dsm_social_share_buttons_child][dsm_social_share_buttons_child _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][/dsm_social_share_buttons_child][dsm_social_share_buttons_child dsm_network=”twitter” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][/dsm_social_share_buttons_child][dsm_social_share_buttons_child dsm_network=”linkedin” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][/dsm_social_share_buttons_child][/dsm_social_share_buttons]
Common Disaster Clauses in Wills: Insights from a Texas Legal Battle

Common Disaster Clauses in Wills: Insights from a Texas Legal Battle

by | Last updated Sep 30, 2024 | Inheritance, Inheritance Overview, Probate, Procedure, Property, Spouse, Spouses, Who inherits

Common disasters clauses in Texas wills.

In Texas inheritance cases, the concept of a “common disaster” can significantly impact the distribution of assets. When a married couple makes a will, they often include specific instructions about what should happen to their belongings if they both pass away in a “common disaster.” But what if the circumstances surrounding their deaths are complicated? This is exactly what happened in the tragic case of Vencie and Melba Beard (485 S.W.3d 914 (2016)), and it raises important questions about the law, especially regarding something known as the “slayer statute.”

The Tragic Events

The case of Vencie and Melba Beard illustrates how tragic circumstances can complicate the execution of wills and lead to legal disputes. In a heartbreaking incident, Vencie Beard shot and killed his wife, Melba, before taking his own life. Following their deaths, their wills became a focal point of legal debate. Each will stated that if both spouses died in a “common disaster,” their assets should be distributed to certain individuals. But here’s the twist: Melba died first at 8:59 p.m., and Vencie died later at 10:55 p.m. The case doesn’t explain how this information was known, but it was probably taken from the autopsy report. This timing led to a legal challenge. The “certain individuals” claimed that Melba and Vencie died in a “common disaster” so they would inherit. Other parties did not want “certain individuals” to inherit and claimed that Melba and Vencie did not die in a “common disaster.”

What is a “Common Disaster”?

The term “common disaster” refers to a situation where two or more people die almost simultaneously due to the same event, making it impossible to tell who died first. This concept is important for ensuring that assets are divided according to the deceased’s wishes, even when the order of death is unclear. A Texas statute deals with common disasters when the will does not define a common disaster. See “Required Period of Survival for Devisee” in the Texas Estate Code.

The Legal Dispute

Elaine Stephens, who was in charge of handling the Beards’ estates, filed lawsuits arguing that the couple did not die in a common disaster. The trial court ruled that they did die in a common disaster, stating that the term should apply in this case. However, when the case went to appeal, the court recognized that the deaths did not meet the legal definition of a common disaster because Vencie had clearly survived Melba for a significant time.

The Slayer Statute Explained

Here’s where the Slayer statute comes into play. This legal principle states that if someone kills another person, they cannot inherit from that person’s estate. Essentially, you cannot benefit from your own wrongdoing. In this case, because Vencie shot Melba, he would be barred from inheriting her property under this statute, regardless of how the court interpreted their wills. Texas does not have a Slayer statute, but relatives can take other actions to ensure that the Slayer does not inherit from his wrongdoing. See the article here and here.

The Court’s Decision

Ultimately, the court decided that the Beards did not die in a common disaster because Vencie survived Melba for nearly two hours. This ruling meant that “certain individuals” who would have inherited if the deaths resulted from a common disaster did not inherit.

Why This Matters

The Vencie and Melba Beard case underscores the importance of clear language in wills and the implications of tragic circumstances.

Conclusion

This case serves as a reminder of how important it is to think carefully about estate planning. If you’re drafting a will, consider consulting with a legal professional to ensure your intentions are clear and that your wishes will be honored, even in unfortunate circumstances.

If you have questions about inheritance disputes in Texas, contact us for a consultation.

Subscribe to our newsletter for more insights on estate planning and inheritance laws.

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.

Who Can Contest a Texas Probate?

Who Can Contest a Texas Probate?

by | Last updated Nov 5, 2022 | Contesting wills, Procedure, Spouse, Who

Who Can Contest a Texas Probate

Background

In order to contest a Texas probate, you have to have standing. Standing means a person has a right to bring a lawsuit in Texas. To have standing in a Texas probate proceeding, you have to be an interested party.

Facts

In a recent case out of the Fort Worth court of appeals, the issue of standing was the central issue. 02-21-00290-CV. In this case, a man died in an accident. His common-law wife, Ms. Pachecano, had three suits; a worker’s compensation case, a wrongful death and survival action, and a probate case seeking to be appointed administrator of the husband’s estate. In the worker’s compensation case, the insurance company balked because of the alleged common-law marriage. Ms. Pachecano settled the worker’s compensation case to get the proceeds for her children. She signed papers that she was not a legal beneficiary.

When Ms. Pachecano filed the probate case to be appointed administrator of her husband’s estate, the defendant, Jackson, intervened in the probate case. Jackson claimed that because Ms. Pachecano had said in the worker’s compensation case that she was not a legal beneficiary, she couldn’t participate in his probate case—the probate court denied Jackson’s intervention. Jackson appealed. Ms. Pachecano did not challenge Jackson’s standing to be involved in the probate case until after he appealed.

Appeal

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court, stating:

Because Jackson was not an interested person, Ms. Pachecano’s argument continues that Jackson lacked standing to intervene in the heirship proceeding that she filed. We agree that the question of whether a person is interested implicates standing. As explained below, Jackson as a defendant in a wrongful-death and survival action is not an interested person in an heirship determination; thus, Jackson lacked standing to intervene. Further, Jackson’s arguments regarding why it had standing—whether an interested person or not—are unpersuasive.

Ms. Pachecano did not challenge Jackson’s standing to intervene in the probate court. That failure, however, is not a waiver of a jurisdiction-based contention, such as standing.

Pretermitted Spouse in Texas

Pretermitted Spouse in Texas

by | Last updated May 4, 2022 | Heirship, Spouse, Spouses

Pretermitted Spouse in Texas.

Texas does not recognize a pretermitted spouse, but other states, including New Mexico, do. I have written articles about a pretermitted spouse here and here. Even though Texas doesn’t recognize a pretermitted spouse, do they have inheritance rights in Texas if they are recognized as a pretermitted spouse in another state?

Background

If a person leaves a will, the will is filed for probate, and it determines who owns his property. If there is no will, then an heirship determination is filed to determine who his/her heirs are and who will receive his/her property.

Can you have an heirship proceeding when there is a will? Yes, says Amarillo Court of Appeals, 07-21-00137-CV.

Facts

A man died with a will. His sister filed the will for probate, claiming his property under the will. The will was admitted to probate on September 16, 2015. Almost two years later, a woman from New Mexico filed a pleading in the case asking for an heirship determination alleging that she was the man’s common-law wife. She claims that she is a pretermitted spouse under New Mexico law. Because she was a pretermitted spouse, she claimed she owned the man’s property.

The sister filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment, alleging that there could be no determination of heirship because there was a will. She cited §202.002 of the Estate Code “Circumstances under Which Proceeding to Declare Heirship Is Authorized.”

Ruling

The court pointed out that §202.002(2)(B) of that section allows an heirship proceeding when there is a will if “no final disposition of property in this state has been made in the administration…”

Because “Nothing of record indicates that the administration of Joe’s testamentary estate ever closed,” the court held that §202.002(2)(B) applied and denied the sister’s plea to the jurisdiction and summary judgment. The wife was allowed to have her day in court.

Reflection

There can be no Texas pretermitted spouse, but if a person from another state is recognized as a pretermitted spouse, they may be able to obtain some or all of their spouse’s estate. It is worth noting that the case mentions that the man had property in New Mexico.

Difference between annulment and divorce in Texas

Difference between annulment and divorce in Texas

by | Jan 10, 2022 | Spouse, Who inherits

What is the difference between annulment and divorce?

A divorce is a court order that ends a marriage. An annulment is a court order that the marriage never existed.

An annulment can only be ordered based on limited circumstances like fraud, duress, or force as well as underage parties, alcohol or drug abuse, mental capacity, etc. There has to be some kind of untruthfulness that caused the person seeking an annulment to enter the marriage when they would not have done so if they knew the truth.

A divorce can be ordered when the parties feel they cannot continue living together. So, there was a marriage that is now ended.

What difference does it make in inheritance disputes?

A recent case shows how an annulment affects inheritance disputes. 02-21-00044-CV. In this case, a man, Quebe, died intestate. His daughter asked the probate court in Galveston to appoint her the independent administrator of the estate. A woman named Wallace, who claimed she was the common-law wife of Quebe, filed a competing application. Wallace was married to a man, King, who lived in Wichita County. Wallace went to Wichita County and asked the judge to annul the first marriage to King based on fraud. King didn’t object so the judge granted her an annulment. Wallace then returned to Galveston where the judge found that she was the common-law wife of Quebe and had priority of appointment as the administrator of his estate.

If the woman had gotten a divorce, she couldn’t be the common-law wife of Quebe because she was already married. But, by getting the marriage annulled, it is as if no marriage ever existed! And in this case, the probate judge found that she had put on enough evidence to find that she was the common-law wife.

Pin It on Pinterest