A family member signs over her home to a grandchild. Weeks later, she’s declared legally incapacitated. The family questions whether she truly understood what she was doing when she signed. But here’s the challenge: nobody performed a mental evaluation on the exact day she signed the deed. Does that mean the deed stands?
This scenario raises a practical question that surfaces repeatedly in probate disputes. When someone challenges a deed or other legal document based on mental incapacity, the evidence rarely comes from the precise moment the person signed. Medical evaluations happen before or after the signing date. Family members recall behaviors from weeks or months earlier. The question becomes: can courts rely on this evidence to determine someone’s mental state on a specific past date?
Texas law addresses this through well-established principles about how to evaluate historical mental capacity. Courts can—and regularly do—consider evidence from dates both before and after a transaction when determining whether someone had sufficient mental capacity at the moment they signed.
In re the Guardianship of Callie Lavon VanBuskirk, No. 06-25-00026-CV, 2025 WL 3002052 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 27, 2025, no pet.), provides a clear example of how Texas courts apply these principles when proximate evidence of incapacity exists.
Facts & Procedural History
Callie was elderly. She had two adult children: Parker (her son) and Shannon (her daughter). Makenzie was Parker’s daughter and Callie’s granddaughter. On February 12, 2024, Callie signed a general warranty deed transferring her homestead to Makenzie.
Six weeks later, on March 28, 2024, a probate court declared Callie incapacitated. Shannon was appointed as guardian of Callie’s person. Callie passed away on October 20, 2024. After her death, Makenzie deeded half of the homestead to her father Parker.
Shannon, acting in her capacity as guardian of both Callie’s person and estate, filed suit seeking to rescind the February deed. She brought the action as a declaratory judgment proceeding. In the litigation, she argued that Callie lacked the mental capacity required to execute the deed on February 12, 2024.
The probate court held a hearing on the validity of the deed. The court heard testimony from multiple witnesses, including medical experts, family members, and the county clerk who witnessed the deed signing. After reviewing all the evidence, the probate court ruled that Callie did not have capacity to sign the deed on February 12, 2024. The court rescinded the deed and declared it void.
Parker and Makenzie appealed the probate court’s decision. They challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding and the award of attorney fees to Shannon.
The Legal Standard for Mental Capacity to Execute a Deed
Under Texas law, a person must have sufficient mental capacity at the time they execute a deed for that deed to be valid. The Texas Estates Code doesn’t contain a specific provision defining mental capacity for deed execution. Instead, this requirement comes from common law principles developed through decades of court decisions.
Generally, in Texas, mental capacity means the grantor must have had sufficient mind and memory to understand the nature and effect of their act at the time of execution. The person doesn’t need perfect mental clarity or the ability to understand every possible legal nuance. Rather, they must be capable of understanding the details of what they’re conveying and the consequences that will result from the conveyance.
This standard focuses on functional ability rather than medical diagnosis. Someone might have a dementia diagnosis but still possess sufficient capacity to execute a deed if they understand what they’re doing. Conversely, someone without a formal diagnosis might lack capacity if they cannot grasp the nature and effect of their actions.
The law treats different legal acts differently when it comes to required mental capacity. Texas courts have recognized that the capacity required to execute a deed involves understanding the nature and effect of the transaction at the time of signing. A person needs to grasp what property they’re conveying and the immediate consequences that will result. This differs from testamentary capacity, which focuses on whether someone understands they’re making a will, knows the nature and extent of their property, recognizes the natural objects of their bounty, and understands the disposition being made.
The Presumption of Capacity and Who Bears the Burden
Texas law presumes that every person who executes a deed had sufficient mental capacity to understand their legal rights at the time they signed. This presumption exists because the law assumes competence unless proven otherwise. The person seeking to set aside the deed must overcome this presumption by proving the grantor lacked mental capacity.
This burden of proof matters in probate litigation. The party challenging the deed must come forward with evidence. They cannot simply raise doubts or point to concerning behaviors. They must affirmatively demonstrate that the grantor lacked the requisite mental capacity.
Elderly persons receive no different treatment under this standard. The law does not presume that elderly people are incompetent simply because of their age. Advanced age alone cannot establish lack of capacity. The challenger must show actual mental impairment that affected the person’s ability to understand the transaction.
A person who executes a document is also presumed to have read and understood it absent proof of mental incapacity. This presumption reinforces the high bar for challenging deeds and other legal instruments. Courts start from the position that people understand what they sign unless someone proves otherwise.
Can Courts Use Evidence from Dates Other Than the Transaction Date?
The challenge for mental capacity is often one of timing. Texas courts have long recognized that evidence of a grantor’s mental capacity from dates before and after the actual signing is admissible to prove their mental state on the date they executed the deed.
This rule makes practical sense. Medical professionals rarely examine someone on the exact day they sign a deed. Family members don’t typically document their loved one’s mental state with an eye toward future litigation. Contemporaneous evidence from the precise moment of signing almost never exists outside of the observations of people who were present.
The law in Texas on this point comes from multiple court decisions spanning decades. Courts admit evidence from other time periods because mental capacity doesn’t typically change from one day to the next in dramatic fashion (though it certainly can in cases of acute medical events). When someone suffers from progressive conditions like dementia or recovering from events like strokes, their mental state on surrounding dates provides meaningful information about their likely state on the date in question.
How Does Timing Affect the Weight of Evidence?
Not all evidence from other dates carries equal weight. The probative value of evidence about mental capacity depends on its proximity to the date of the transaction. Evidence from one week before carries more weight than evidence from one year before.
Think about how this works in practice. If a doctor examines someone and finds moderate dementia one week before they sign a deed, that finding strongly suggests they likely had the same condition when they signed. The shorter the time gap, the stronger the inference. Conversely, evidence from many months earlier becomes less reliable because mental states can change over longer periods.
Progressive conditions create particularly compelling evidence when recent examinations exist. Dementia typically worsens over time rather than improving. When someone has documented cognitive decline both before and after a transaction date, courts can reasonably infer the decline existed during the transaction as well. The trajectory of decline matters as much as any single data point.
Courts also consider the consistency of evidence across multiple dates. If every witness who interacted with someone during a three-month period reports confusion and disorientation, that pattern provides stronger evidence than a single observation. Multiple data points from different sources before and after the transaction create a more complete picture.
The nature of the mental impairment also affects how courts weigh evidence from other dates. Conditions that fluctuate significantly (like certain psychiatric conditions) make evidence from other dates less reliable than evidence about stable progressive conditions. Someone might have good days and bad days with certain conditions. Dementia following a stroke tends to show more consistent impairment.
What Evidence Did the Court Consider in This Case?
The trial court in this case heard testimony about the mother’s mental capacity in the weeks surrounding the February 12, 2024 deed signing. Dr. Staton provided the most detailed evidence. The probate court had ordered him to examine the mother and assess her mental capacity.
Dr. Staton examined the mother twice: once on February 5, 2024 (seven days before she signed the deed), and again on March 6, 2024 (about three weeks after the deed signing). During the February 5 examination, he administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. The mother scored 19 out of 30. Anything below 22 indicates some form of dementia according to standard interpretation of this assessment tool.
Based on his first evaluation, Dr. Staton sent a preliminary letter on February 7, 2024—just five days before the deed signing. He indicated that the mother’s score reflected mild to moderate dementia. He found she had residual cognitive impairment from a prior stroke that rose to the level of major neurocognitive disorder. Major neurocognitive disorder is the current medical terminology for what was previously called dementia.
The doctor testified that while the mother could express her feelings and contribute to conversations, her capacity for actually making decisions wasn’t sufficient. He found her susceptible to influence. She had difficulty with executive function and would get confused even though she could communicate effectively. His February 7 letter stated she lacked capacity to make major decisions involving her residence, finances, and health.
Dr. Staton’s second examination occurred via FaceTime on March 6, 2024. His written evaluation dated March 7, 2024 diagnosed major neurocognitive disorder due to vascular disease with paranoia and history of stroke. He described the severity as mild to moderate. He testified that the condition was progressively worsening with no expected improvement. He classified her incapacitation level as total.
The doctor’s expert opinion was that the mother would not have been able to make rational decisions regarding her property or finances on February 12, 2024. He stated she lacked the ability to understand the nature and extent of the deed she signed on that date.
Shannon (the daughter who served as guardian) testified that the mother lived with Parker from December 2023 until March 2024. Shannon didn’t believe her mother was of sound mind to make decisions. The mother needed assistance with daily activities. Her mental condition did not improve between March and October 2024 when she died.
Shannon’s testimony about the deed itself proved particularly telling. The mother had to be reminded that she signed the deed. When reminded, the mother indicated she had been “tricked” into signing it. Shannon testified she had never heard her mother express any desire to give her home to her granddaughter Makenzie.
The Red River County Clerk, Tracy Chandler, testified about what she observed when the mother came to file the deed. She had a hard time communicating with the mother. Parker took over and told the clerk’s office what they were trying to accomplish. The mother appeared confused or disoriented. She didn’t seem to know where she was. Parker explained they wanted to change the name on the mother’s property. The clerk informed Parker that they couldn’t just change a name—they needed to file a proper deed.
Multiple family members testified they didn’t believe the mother would have been capable of handling her financial affairs in February or March 2024. This included Shannon’s children and Parker’s son Tanner, who testified he didn’t believe his grandmother would have left her property to Makenzie.
The Court of Appeals found this evidence to be sufficient to support the trial court’s determination. The proximity of the evidence mattered. Dr. Staton’s first examination occurred just seven days before the deed signing. His preliminary findings were documented five days before signing. This wasn’t evidence from months or years earlier. This was evidence from the immediate time period surrounding the transaction. Given the progressive nature of dementia from stroke, the court could reasonably infer that impairment documented one week before the signing continued to exist on the signing date.
The Takeaway
Texas courts regularly use evidence from dates before and after a transaction to determine mental capacity on the specific date someone signed a deed or other legal document. The closer in time the evidence falls to the transaction date, the more weight it carries in the analysis. Progressive conditions like dementia make recent evidence particularly persuasive because these conditions typically worsen rather than improve over short time periods.
When someone signs a deed just days after a medical evaluation documenting moderate dementia and weeks before a court declares them totally incapacitated, challengers have strong evidence to overcome the presumption of capacity. Families dealing with aging relatives who may have diminishing capacity should understand that medical evaluations and observations from nearby dates will factor heavily into any later dispute about whether the person understood what they were signing. The VanBuskirk case demonstrates how Texas courts synthesize evidence from multiple time points to reconstruct someone’s mental state on a particular date when direct evidence from that date doesn’t exist.
Do you need help with a probate dispute in Houston or the surrounding area? We are Houston litigation attorneys. We help clients navigate even the most complex estates. Call today for a free confidential consultation, 281-219-9090.
Our Houston Probate Litigation Attorneys provide a full range of services to our clients, including helping with challenges to real estate deeds. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process. We have years of combined experience we can use to support and guide you with guardianship and probate matters. Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation.
Disclaimer
The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information presented may not apply to your situation and should not be acted upon without consulting a qualified probate attorney. We encourage you to seek the advice of a competent attorney with any legal questions you may have.
