Elderly adults often become targets for theft by the very people hired to help them. Caregivers gain access to homes and personal belongings. They steal money and valuables. Important documents like wills often vanish during these thefts. The documents may be destroyed accidentally or lost in the chaos that follows systematic exploitation.
It can create a signficant problem for the family when original wills disappear. If the will was last in the person’s possession and cannot be found, the law assumes the person destroyed it on purpose. This rule usually makes sense. But what happens when the will disappeared because of theft rather than the person’s choice to revoke it?
Can evidence of caregiver theft can overcome the legal assumption that a missing will was intentionally destroyed? Can courts look at the circumstances surrounding exploitation to determine what really happened to the document? The court addressed these questions in In re Estate of Brown, 704 S.W.3d 428 (2025).
Facts & Procedural History
Myrtle Brown made a will in October 2009. The will named the Humane Society as her only beneficiary. Eriks would serve as the executor. The attorney who drafted the document was known. It was also know that Brown kept the original will after signing it.
Brown had family problems before making this will. Her cousin Powell was supposed to inherit everything under an earlier will from August 2009. Powell fired one of Brown’s caregivers. Brown believed Powell was stealing from her. This led Brown to make the new October will that disinherited Powell.
Problems with Brown’s caregivers continued after the new will. Easterling, Brown’s former attorney, wrote to the court suggesting Brown needed a guardian. The court appointed attorney Wylie as Brown’s guardian in October 2009. A medical exam in December 2009 showed Brown was completely incapacitated. Wylie became guardian of both Brown’s person and her money in February 2010.
Wylie discovered extensive theft. Brown’s caregivers had been stealing from her. Brown’s papers and belongings were scattered and disorganized. Someone had clearly gone through everything before Wylie started looking for important documents. Brown told Wylie that people were stealing from her. Many different people had access to Brown’s living space at the assisted living facility.
Brown died in June 2018. Nobody could find the original October 2009 will despite thorough searches. Eriks and the Humane Society filed applications for probate administration using a copy of the will. No one opposed the applications. The probate court denied them anyway. The probate court said there was not enough evidence about why the original will was missing. The probate court also said the applicants failed to prove Brown had not destroyed the will herself.
What Happens When Original Wills Cannot Be Found?
The Texas Estates Code includes rules for when original wills are missing. Section 256.156 requires two things from people seeking to probate copies. First, they must prove why the original cannot be produced. Second, they must overcome a legal assumption about what happened to the missing will.
The law assumes people who have their own wills and later destroy them meant to cancel those wills. This makes sense in normal situations. People keep their wills so they can change their minds later. When the will disappears and the person had control over it, destruction usually means revocation.
But this assumption can be wrong. Wills sometimes disappear for other reasons. Natural disasters destroy homes and papers. Thieves steal documents along with other valuables. Family members accidentally throw away important papers during cleanouts. The law allows people to present evidence that contradicts the assumption of intentional destruction.
The key question in these cases is what kind of evidence can overcome this legal assumption? Courts want to see proof that something other than the person’s intent caused the will to disappear.
How Strong Is the Presumption That Missing Wills Were Revoked?
Texas courts have said the presumption of revocation is not a high barrier. People seeking to probate will copies do not need overwhelming proof that the person did not destroy the will. They need enough evidence to make intentional destruction seem unlikely.
Several types of evidence can rebut the presumption. Natural disasters that destroyed the person’s home provide good explanations. Theft of the person’s papers and valuables suggests the will disappeared along with other items. Evidence that someone else had access to the will and might have destroyed it works too. Even accidental disposal during moves or estate cleanouts can explain why originals vanish.
Courts also look at the person’s mental condition and statements about the will. If the person lacked mental capacity to form the intent to revoke, that supports keeping the will valid. Statements showing the person was happy with the will’s terms help too. Evidence that the person never wanted to change the will makes intentional destruction less likely.
The timing of events matters significantly. If the person became incapacitated soon after making the will, the window for intentional revocation becomes very narrow. Long periods of incapacity make it unlikely the person destroyed the will with intent to revoke it.
What Role Does Caregiver Theft Play in These Cases?
Evidence of caregiver theft provides strong support for rebutting the presumption of revocation. Caregivers who steal from vulnerable adults may go through all of their belongings. They look for cash, jewelry, and financial information. Important documents frequently get lost or destroyed during these searches.
Systematic theft by caregivers typically leaves estates in chaos. Papers get scattered or thrown away. Documents may be damaged when thieves search through files looking for valuable information. The disorder makes it impossible to know whether specific documents were targeted or simply lost in the confusion.
The aftermath of caregiver exploitation provides additional evidence for non-revocation. When family members or guardians eventually discover the theft, they find belongings in complete disarray. Missing documents could result from the systematic interference rather than any decision by the victim.
Courts recognize that vulnerable adults lose control over their possessions when exploitation occurs. The theft represents an external force that interferes with the person’s ability to control their own documents. This interference contradicts the assumption that missing wills result from the person’s deliberate choice.
How Does Mental Incapacity Affect the Revocation Analysis?
Mental incapacity can provide compelling evidence against intentional revocation. Texas law requires people to have enough mental capacity to understand what revocation means. They must comprehend the consequences of destroying their wills. People who lack this capacity cannot form the intent necessary to revoke.
Court-appointed guardianships establish legal incapacity. The guardianship process requires medical evidence that the person cannot manage their own affairs. Once a guardian takes control, the ward loses the legal ability to make independent decisions about property. This includes decisions about revoking wills.
The timing of incapacity becomes important in these cases. If someone becomes incapacitated shortly after making a will, they have little opportunity for intentional revocation. The shorter the time between will execution and incapacity, the stronger the argument against intentional destruction.
Long periods of incapacity make intentional revocation increasingly unlikely. If someone remains under guardianship for years before dying, intentional destruction becomes implausible. The guardian would have control over important documents during this period.
How Did These Factors Work Together in Brown’s Case?
According to the courts, Brown’s case presented multiple factors that supported rebutting the presumption of revocation. The caregiver theft explained how the will might have disappeared. Brown’s mental incapacity explained why she could not have destroyed it intentionally. The disordered state of her belongings suggested third-party interference rather than deliberate destruction by Brown.
The timeline strengthened the non-revocation argument. Brown made her will in October 2009. She became subject to guardianship the same month. By February 2010, she was legally incapacitated and under full guardianship. This left only a few months when she could have revoked the will independently.
Wylie’s testimony described the chaotic condition of Brown’s affairs. Brown’s papers and belongings were scattered and disorganized. Someone had clearly searched through everything before Wylie began looking for the will. This evidence suggested the will disappeared during the theft rather than through Brown’s deliberate choice.
The systematic nature of the exploitation supported the non-revocation theory. The caregivers were not just taking a few items. They were stealing systematically from Brown over time. This pattern of behavior made it likely that important documents would be lost or destroyed during the thefts.
What Can Estate Administrators Learn from This Case?
The Brown decision shows that evidence of exploitation can overcome the presumption that missing wills were intentionally revoked. Estate administrators dealing with similar situations should focus on documenting the theft and its effects on the decedent’s belongings and papers.
Guardian reports become particularly valuable in these cases. Guardians who discover theft should document what they find. They should describe the condition of the ward’s belongings and any evidence of systematic interference. These reports can provide the evidence needed to rebut the presumption of revocation.
Police reports about elder abuse or theft provide additional documentation. Even if criminal charges are never filed, police reports establish that exploitation occurred. They create official records that courts can consider when evaluating what happened to missing documents.
Witness testimony about the exploitation becomes important too. Family members, neighbors, or other caregivers may have observed the theft or its aftermath. Their testimony can help establish the pattern of exploitation and its effects on the victim’s possessions.
The timing of guardianship appointments carries legal significance. When guardians are appointed because of concerns about exploitation, the guardianship proceedings themselves provide evidence supporting non-revocation. The legal finding of incapacity limits when intentional revocation could have occurred.
The Takeaway
The court’s decision in this case establishes that evidence of caregiver theft and exploitation can be used to rebut the presumption that missing wills were intentionally revoked. The decision recognizes that vulnerable adults often lose control over their important documents through no fault of their own. It stands for the proposition that courts should consider all circumstances surrounding a will’s disappearance rather than automatically assuming intentional destruction.
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 missing, lost and destroyed wills. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the guardianship 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.
Don't miss out, get a copy today!
