Texas Inheritance Issues

Texas Slayer Rule

by Robert Ray | 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:

The Texas Constitution (Article 1, Section 21) says that no criminal conviction can cause someone to lose their inheritance rights.
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:

File a Court Action: Someone with a legal interest in the case must go to court
Request a Constructive Trust: This is a special legal tool that helps prevent unfair situations
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:

Act quickly
Contact us or another legal professional
Gather evidence
File for a constructive trust
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.

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

by Robert Ray | 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.

Difference between annulment and divorce in Texas

by Robert Ray | 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.

When Can a Texas judge change or reform a will

by Robert Ray | Last updated Dec 16, 2020 | Contesting Wills, Grounds, Inheritance Overview, Who inherits

When can a Texas judge reform a will?

The Texas Estates Code, 255.451, says a Texas judge can reform a will or modified it in certain circumstances. The same is true of a trust. Prop. C. 112.054. In a 2019 case, 06-19-00014-CV, a trust was modified by the trial court. The appeals court reversed the modificaiton.

Facts

A man and woman were married. 06-19-00014-CV. The wife had a child, Edna. The husband adopted Edna. Thereafter, they had two children between them, Ignacio and Esperanza. At some point, they created a trust.

The first Trust article, labelled “Identification,” read, “The Grantors have two children, their daughter, ESPERANZA GONZALES and son IGNACIO G. GONZALES, JR. All references in this Declaration of Trust to the `Grantors’ children’ are to them. The term “children” was never used again. The trust only used the term “descendants” after that. Edna’s name was not in the trust.

There was one blank in the document that said “all of the remaining trust property shall be distributed to the Grantors’ [_____].” Ignacio and Esperanza asked the trial judge to reform the will and fill in the blank with “children.” Edna opposed that and wanted the blank to be filled in with the term “descendants” that was used in all the provisions that disposed of property. The trial court reformed the trust by inserting “children.” Edna appealed.

Ruling

The appeals court reversed. It discussed the law about the ability of a Texas judge’s ability to reform a will or a trust based on a scrivener’s error (a mistake made by the attorney preparing the document as opposed to a mistake by the clients.) They noted that the person seeking the reformation had a high burden. A clear and convincing burden of proof which Ignacio and Esperanza did not meet.

The court agreed that there was a scrivener’s error but it could have been leaving Edna out of the Identification paragraph as well as not filing in the blank. They sent the case back to have these issues tried by a jury.

What should you know

A Texas judge can reform a will. If there is a will or trust that has errors in it, a court can correct those errors in certain circumstances.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A TEXAS WILL DOESN’T DISPOSE OF ALL THE PROPERTY

by Robert Ray | Last updated Dec 16, 2020 | Inheritance Overview, Property, Who inherits

Property not disposed of by will

A will must dispose of all property in all circumstances. If it doesn’t, the the laws of descent and distribution will determine who gets the property.

When a person executes a will, the intention is that all of the property will be disposed of. Sometimes that doesn’t happen.

In a 2019 case, 07-17-00296-CV, the testator made a will. In the will he left his half of the community to his wife as a life estate. When the wife died, he made three contingent provisions for the property to go different ways depending on the contingencies. None of the contingencies occurred.

Since none of the contingencies occurred and the will only made a disposition of the property based on those contingencies, it was determined that he died intestate as to that property after the life tenant (his wife) died.

Challenging a Joint Account

by Robert Ray | Last updated Apr 14, 2025 | Contesting Wills, Inheritance Overview, Property, Who inherits

Background

When a person dies, their will determines who gets their property. If he doesn’t have a will, then the law of descent and distribution determines who gets his property. Pay on Death (POD) and joint accounts with right of survivorship differ.

Financial accounts like checking, savings, CDs, brokerage accounts, and retirement accounts are not probate assets and they are not part of the decedent’s property if they have a beneficiary designation. The beneficiary gets the account, and it is not divided among the heirs. What happens if you think something is wrong and the decedent was taken advantage of, and this type of account should go to probate and be divided among the heirs, not given to the beneficiary? This article will discuss that issue.

Challenging a joint account

Paperwork is not in order

To challenge a POD or joint account with right of survivorship is not easy but there are ways to do it. The first thing to learn is whether or not the paperwork at the financial institution is in order. Texas requires specific words and forms to create such an account and if the paperwork is not in order, the account goes to the estate and not the beneficiary. Where the paperwork is not in order, you can challenge the account based on a fiduciary relationship between the beneficiary and the decedent or challenge the account based on the intent of the decedent to share the account with other beneficiaries. You can ask the probate court to determine who gets the money in the accounts. But what happens if the paperwork is in order?

Paperwork is in order

If the paperwork is in order, you can’t challenge the account based on a fiduciary relationship between the beneficiary and the decedent or challenge the account based on the intent of the decedent to share the account with other beneficiaries. Because the paperwork is in order, other evidence is not admissible to change the account contract.

What can you do? The account can be challenged based on the decedent’s lack of mental capacity to contract at the time the beneficiary designation was changed or added. This is similar to contesting a will based on lack of testamentary capacity. Filing the proper paperwork in the probate court, obtaining admissible evidence and presenting it in the proper manner to the court at the proper time is what needs to be done to challenge these accounts.

Take away

If someone is claiming that they own a financial account because they were designated as a beneficiary, don’t take that on face value. Have your attorney look into the accounts and determine to whom they belong.

« Older Entries