When a parent passes away leaving behind a blended family, the stage is often set for conflict. Children from different marriages may have vastly different relationships with the deceased parent, and estate planning documents sometimes reflect these complicated dynamics. Now imagine discovering that your mother’s will explicitly excludes you while including your siblings and step-siblings, with only the cryptic explanation that you’re “familiar with the reasons.”
This scenario becomes even more complex when everyone involved appears to have acted reasonably. What happens when a jury finds that the excluded child had legitimate reasons to challenge the will, the other beneficiaries had legitimate reasons to defend it, and yet the will still excludes one child? More specifically, who should bear the financial burden of sorting out these competing legitimate interests?
The recent case of In the Estate of Suzanne Joyce Ryther, No. 01-23-00600-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 12, 2025), provides an opportunity to consider this issue and examine how Texas courts allocate attorney’s fees when a jury determines that all parties to a will contest acted in good faith and with just cause.
Facts & Procedural History
The decedent passed away in December 2020 at age eighty-eight. She was survived by three biological children and two stepchildren from her late husband’s prior marriage. The biological children included Eric, Jeffrey, and William. The stepchildren were Fenley and Carol Ann. The estate was substantial, approximately $1.5 million, including over $400,000 in an individual retirement account.
Eric filed an application for probate administration of his mother’s July 13, 2017 will. This will contained a provision that explicitly disinherited William. It stated that the decedent “intend[ed] to make no provisions” for him and that “he was familiar with the reasons.” The will left the entire estate to the other four children – Eric, Jeffrey, Fenley, and Carol Ann.
William contested the will through probate litigation. He alleged in the will contest that his mother lacked testamentary capacity when she signed the will. He claimed he first noticed his mother’s confusion and forgetfulness in 2016, about a year before she executed the will that disinherited him. According to William, his brothers Eric and Jeffrey had exerted undue influence over their mother during a period when her cognitive abilities were significantly diminished. He believed his mother “would have never cut [him] out of her estate” absent some improper and undue influence.
Beyond the will itself, William also challenged an IRA beneficiary designation executed on May 14, 2017, roughly two months before the will was signed. He argued that this designation was similarly the product of undue influence and that his mother lacked contractual capacity to execute it. William filed a petition seeking ten separate declaratory judgments addressing both the will and various non-probate transfers.
The case proceeded to a jury trial in October 2022. The jury reached a split verdict. On the main issue, the jury found that the will was valid–the mother had testamentary capacity when she signed it and was not unduly influenced by Eric or Jeffrey. However, regarding the IRA beneficiary designation, the jury found that the mother lacked contractual capacity and that Eric had unduly influenced her in executing that document. The jury made an additional finding for the attorney’s fees dispute, namely, that all parties had acted in “good faith and with just cause” in their respective positions.
Following the verdict, William sought attorney’s fees totaling $177,235.12 under both the Texas Estates Code and the Declaratory Judgments Act. Despite the jury’s finding that he acted in good faith and with just cause, the probate court awarded him nothing. William appealed solely on the attorney’s fees issue.
Attorney’s Fees Under the Texas Estates Code
The Texas Estates Code contains specific provisions governing when parties to a will contest may recover their attorney’s fees from the estate. Section 352.052 creates a framework that treats different categories of parties differently, reflecting their varying roles and interests in probate proceedings.
Section 352.052 divides potential fee recipients into three categories. First, under subsection (a), a person designated as executor in a will who defends it or prosecutes proceedings for its admission to probate “shall be allowed” fees from the estate if they act “in good faith and with just cause, whether or not successful.” Second, subsection (b) provides that beneficiaries named in a will who defend it or help prosecute proceedings for its admission “may be allowed” fees if they act in good faith and with just cause, again “whether or not successful.” Third, subsection (c) states that interested persons who contest a will “may be allowed” fees, but only if they act in good faith and with just cause and “successfully prosecute” their contest.
The distinction between these provisions is significant. Executors and beneficiaries can recover fees even if they lose, as long as they act in good faith. Will contestants, however, must both act in good faith and actually succeed in their challenge. This structure reflects a policy choice by the legislature–those seeking to uphold a will face less financial risk than those seeking to overturn it.
What Does “Successfully Prosecutes” Mean?
The requirement that a will contestant “successfully prosecute” their challenge to recover fees raises questions about what level of success is required. Does it mean complete victory on all claims? Substantial success on the main issues? Or would any favorable finding suffice?
In William’s case, he achieved mixed results. He failed to invalidate the will itself, which was his primary objective. The jury rejected his claims that his mother lacked testamentary capacity or was unduly influenced when signing the will. On these central issues, he clearly did not “successfully prosecute” his contest.
Yet William did succeed on two related claims. The jury found that his mother lacked contractual capacity for the IRA beneficiary designation and that Eric unduly influenced her regarding that document. This was a significant finding – it meant that over $400,000 in IRA assets would be distributed differently than Eric intended. But was this enough to constitute “successfully prosecuting” a proceeding under Section 352.052(c)?
The trial court said no. Because William failed to invalidate the will itself, the court found he hadn’t successfully prosecuted a proceeding to contest the will’s validity. The IRA designation was a separate non-probate transfer, not part of the will. Under this interpretation, partial success on related claims doesn’t satisfy the statutory requirement for fee recovery.
The Problem With Partial Success
William’s situation illustrates a common challenge in modern probate litigation. Estate planning today often involves multiple documents–wills, trust agreements, beneficiary designations, transfer-on-death deeds. A parent might execute several documents around the same time as part of a comprehensive estate plan. When capacity or undue influence is at issue, these concerns might affect some documents but not others.
This creates the possibility of partial victories where a contestant proves wrongdoing regarding some documents but not others. The jury might find, as here, that the testator had capacity for one document but not another, or that undue influence affected one transaction but not another. These split outcomes leave courts struggling to determine who should pay attorney’s fees.
The traditional all-or-nothing approach to fees in will contests may not adequately address these complex situations. A contestant who uncovers genuine wrongdoing but doesn’t achieve complete victory still provides a valuable service by exposing improper conduct. Should they bear the entire cost of that effort?
When Good Faith Isn’t Enough
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the case is the jury’s finding that all parties acted in good faith and with just cause. This wasn’t a situation where someone fabricated claims or pursued frivolous arguments. The jury specifically found that William had legitimate reasons to challenge his disinheritance and that his brothers had legitimate reasons to defend their mother’s will.
For William, being explicitly excluded from his mother’s will with only a vague reference to reasons he supposedly knew certainly raised red flags. His observation of his mother’s cognitive decline in the year before she signed the will gave him reasonable grounds for concern. The fact that the jury ultimately found undue influence regarding the IRA designation validates that his suspicions weren’t entirely unfounded.
For Eric and Jeffrey, they were simply trying to probate what appeared to be a validly executed will. The document was properly witnessed and met all formal requirements. They weren’t engaged in any scheme to defraud their brother–they were carrying out what they believed were their mother’s wishes.
When everyone acts appropriately but disagrees about a decedent’s capacity or intentions, who should bear the financial burden? The current statutory framework puts that burden on the unsuccessful contestant, even when their concerns prove partially justified.
Was There Another Path to Fees?
The interesting part of this question raised by this case is whether William might have qualified for fees under subsection (b) rather than subsection (c) of Section 352.052. Subsection (b) allows fees for “a person designated as a devisee in or beneficiary of a will or an alleged will” who defends it or prosecutes proceedings in good faith, “whether or not successful.”
If William was a beneficiary under a prior will, he might argue that his contest was actually an attempt to defend his rights under that earlier document. The statute refers to “a will or an alleged will,” not specifically the will being probated. This broader language could encompass beneficiaries under superseded wills who challenge later documents.
The opinion suggests William may have had an expectation of inheritance based on prior estate planning. He alleged his mother “would have never cut [him] out of her estate,” implying some previous understanding or documentation. If he was named in an earlier will, his challenge to the 2017 will could be reframed as defending his position under the prior document.
With that said, the court notes that William didn’t pursue this argument on appeal. The court noted that he didn’t challenge the trial court’s determination that he wasn’t entitled to fees under the Estates Code. This might reflect a strategic decision to focus on other arguments.
The Takeaway
This case gets into one of the areas that have to be considered in will contest cases, namely, attorneys fees. Even when a contestant has legitimate, good faith reasons for bringing a challenge, and even when they expose genuine wrongdoing affecting part of the estate plan, they may still face significant financial exposure with no possibility of fee recovery. The statutory framework appears to favor those defending wills over those challenging them, regardless of the merits of either position. This creates an asymmetric risk that may deter valid challenges to problematic estate planning documents. This underscores the importance of carefully evaluating not just the merits but also the economics of litigation. When a jury agrees they acted reasonably in bringing their challenge, however, that may not be the case.
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 will contests and estate planning. 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.
