When elderly parents become seriously ill, adult children who have been distant for years sometimes suddenly appear at the hospital bedside. These long-absent children may express newfound concern about their parent’s estate planning and suggest that existing wills need immediate revision. The parent, weakened by illness and facing dangerous medical procedures, may feel compelled to accommodate these requests to maintain family harmony during what could be their final days.
Such scenarios become particularly problematic when the suggested changes dramatically alter the distribution of valuable assets like family businesses or real estate. The parent may have spent years developing clear intentions about who should inherit these assets based on who actually helped maintain and operate them. However, the pressure of terminal illness and family dynamics can lead to hastily drafted wills that contradict those long-standing intentions.
The timing and circumstances of will execution become important factors in determining whether the documents reflect the testator’s true wishes or result from undue influence by opportunistic family members. When multiple wills are executed within days of each other during medical crises, courts must carefully examine whether the testator retained sufficient mental freedom to make genuine testamentary decisions. The case of In the Estate of Clifford Eugene Everett, 2010 WL 4008366 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, no pet.), provides an opportunity to examine how Texas courts analyze patterns of rapid will changes during terminal illness to determine whether undue influence occurred.
Facts & Procedural History
Cliff was seventy-nine years old when he died in May 2007, leaving behind a complex family situation and three different wills executed within approximately thirteen months. He had four children from his first marriage—Geneie, Joe, Geri, and Janet—and four step-children with his second wife. None of Cliff’s biological children had maintained regular contact with him, and Joe testified that he had not seen his father since 2002, approximately five years before Cliff’s death.
Cliff had devoted significant money and energy over many years to developing and operating the Holiday Travel Park in Del Rio, which represented the most valuable asset in his estate. Although one step-son Gary occasionally worked at the Park, it was Gary’s son James—Cliff’s step-grandson—who assisted with daily operations and became increasingly important to the business as Cliff’s health declined.
The relationship between Cliff and James was described by multiple witnesses as close, based substantially on James’s help with day-to-day Park operations. In contrast, none of Cliff’s biological children showed interest in taking over the Park or participating in its operation. This pattern of involvement and family relationships formed the backdrop for the will executions that followed.
Cliff’s health began seriously declining in spring 2007 due to congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and colon problems. He was in and out of hospitals during March and April 2007, facing increasingly dangerous medical procedures. On April 24, 2007, Cliff underwent surgery for a colon problem in San Angelo but never recovered from the operation. He died on May 9, 2007.
The three wills at issue were dated March 21, 2006; April 13, 2007; and April 24, 2007. After Cliff’s death, son Joe filed an application to probate the third will while step-grandson James opposed that probate and sought to probate the first will. The jury found that Joe had procured the third will by undue influence and fraud, leading to admission of the first will to probate.
This Probate Litigation involved complex questions about the circumstances surrounding rapid will changes during terminal illness and the impact of family dynamics on testamentary capacity. The case also raised issues about Estate Planning during medical emergencies and the protection of testamentary intent from family manipulation.
The Three Wills: A Pattern of Changing Distributions
The first will, executed March 21, 2006, was prepared by a local attorney when Cliff was in good health. This document devised $100 to each of Cliff’s four children and four step-children, with the residuary estate—including the valuable Holiday Travel Park—going to James. Multiple witnesses testified that this distribution aligned with Cliff’s long-standing intentions to preserve the Park and ensure its continued operation under James’s management.
The second will, executed April 13, 2007, represented a dramatic departure from the first will’s distribution scheme. This document was prepared by Geneie’s husband using internet sources and devised Cliff’s entire estate equally between James and Cliff’s four biological children, giving each a 20% share. The will appointed Geneie as independent executor rather than James.
The third will, executed April 24, 2007, maintained the same distribution as the second will but named James and Joe as co-executors rather than Geneie alone. Joe’s wife prepared this document, again using non-attorney sources. The execution occurred thirty minutes before Cliff underwent the dangerous surgery that ultimately led to his death.
The progression from the first will to the later documents shows a clear pattern: each revision increasingly favored Cliff’s biological children at the expense of James, despite evidence that James maintained the closer relationship with Cliff and greater involvement in the family business. The timing of these revisions—occurring during Cliff’s hospitalization and medical crisis—raised questions about whether they reflected his true intentions or resulted from family pressure.
Circumstances Surrounding the Second Will Execution
The events leading to the second will’s execution began when James called Geneie to inform her of Cliff’s hospital admission on April 8, 2007. After arriving at the hospital on April 12, Geneie went to dinner with James. Unbeknownst to James, Geneie’s husband drafted a two-page will that evening using internet sources for Geneie to present to Cliff the following day.
On April 13, Geneie told James not to come to the hospital because Cliff was tired from a colonoscopy-type procedure and did not want visitors. However, within hours after Cliff’s sedation for the procedure, Geneie presented him with the second will that dramatically altered his estate distribution.
James learned about the new will only when Geneie called the Park searching for a notary. This prompted James to go to the hospital immediately. Before the will execution, Geneie made several statements to Cliff that appeared designed to influence his decision-making about the estate.
Geneie told Cliff about a friend who supposedly had to pay 50% inheritance tax, which surprised Cliff with the large amount. She also told James, in Cliff’s presence, that as the sole beneficiary of the Park under the first will, James would need to come up with $500,000 or sell the Park. When Geneie asked James where he would obtain such money, James testified that Cliff cried over these remarks.
After Geneie informed James about the new will, Cliff reassured James that nothing would change regarding the Park because his children did not want involvement in the business. Cliff also mentioned that Joe and Geneie were trying to figure out solutions for the inheritance tax problem. The actual estate taxes later proved to be approximately $50,000—significantly less than the $500,000 figure Geneie had suggested.
Bobby Smalley, who witnessed the second will execution, described it as being under Geneie’s direction and characterized as a “hurry up job” because of the air of immediacy surrounding the signing. He described Cliff as fairly meek, ill, and not his usual self. Significantly, after signing the second will, Cliff reconfirmed to Bobby that he intended the Park to go to James.
Circumstances Surrounding the Third Will Execution
Cliff’s health continued deteriorating, and he was transferred to a hospital in San Angelo. Eleven days after signing the second will, Joe presented Cliff with the third will prepared by Joe’s wife. This document maintained the same distribution as the second will but changed the executor designation to name both James and Joe as co-executors.
The timing of the third will execution proved particularly significant. Unlike the second will, which followed a colonoscopy procedure, the third will was executed thirty minutes before Cliff underwent the dangerous surgery that ultimately caused his death. Joe arranged for witnesses and a notary to be present at the hospital for the execution.
The execution of the third will was never revealed to James before Cliff’s death. Bill Clucas, one of Cliff’s close friends, arrived at the hospital within thirty minutes of the will execution. As hospital staff was taking Cliff to surgery, Bill described Cliff as “sedated” and stated he was not sure Cliff even recognized him.
This timing—executing a will immediately before dangerous surgery while sedated—created additional concerns about whether Cliff possessed sufficient mental capacity and freedom from influence to make testamentary decisions. The secrecy surrounding the execution, keeping James unaware of the new document, also suggested possible manipulation of the situation.
Joe’s assertion that nothing would change regarding the Park’s operation proved false. Immediately after Cliff’s death, Joe and Geneie fired personnel, changed bank accounts, and changed locks at the Park. These actions contradicted Cliff’s apparent intentions to maintain continuity in the Park’s operations under James’s management.
The Legal Framework for Undue Influence Claims
Texas law requires proving three elements to establish undue influence that justifies setting aside a will: the existence and exertion of an influence that subverted or overpowered the testator’s mind at the time of execution, causing the testator to execute an instrument he would not otherwise have executed but for such influence.
The jury charge in the Everett case provided specific guidance about the factors courts consider when evaluating undue influence claims. These factors include the circumstances surrounding execution of the instrument; the relationship between the testator and recipients of the bounty; the motive, character, and conduct of persons benefited; the opportunity to exert influence; the beneficiary’s participation in drafting and execution; the words and acts of parties; and whether the property disposition was improvident, unjust, unreasonable, or unnatural.
The charge also instructed the jury to consider the testator’s mental and physical condition, including age, weakness of body or mind from infirmities or disease, and the opportunity to exert undue influence. These factors recognize that seriously ill persons may be particularly susceptible to influence from family members who appear during medical crises.
Undue influence is typically subtle and involves extended courses of dealings, contacts, and circumstances rather than single dramatic events. However, the evidence must show more than merely the opportunity to exert influence—it must demonstrate that influence was actually exerted regarding the will’s execution.
The standard recognizes that weakened physical and mental condition indicates susceptibility to influence but does not alone prove that such influence existed in fact. Courts must examine the totality of circumstances to determine whether the influence was sufficient to overcome the testator’s free will.
Evidence Supporting the Undue Influence Finding
The court identified several factors that supported the jury’s finding of undue influence regarding the third will. The close proximity in time between the second and third wills, with both documents changing Cliff’s estate disposition, suggested a pattern of family pressure during his final illness.
Multiple witnesses testified that Cliff’s body and mind were weakened when both the second and third wills were signed. His serious illness, including congestive heart failure and colon problems requiring dangerous surgery, made him particularly vulnerable to influence from family members.
The involvement of Geneie and Joe in preparing and executing both the second and third wills demonstrated their active participation in changing their father’s estate plan. Neither child had maintained close relationships with Cliff, yet both suddenly appeared during his final illness to advocate for will changes that benefited them financially.
The testimony about Cliff’s long-standing intentions provided important context for evaluating whether the later wills reflected his true wishes. Multiple close friends confirmed that Cliff had consistently expressed his intention to leave the Park to James to ensure its continued operation. These intentions, formed over many years and when Cliff was in good health, contrasted sharply with the hasty changes made during his terminal illness.
The misleading information about inheritance taxes also supported the undue influence finding. Geneie’s representation that taxes could amount to $500,000—ten times the actual amount—appeared designed to frighten Cliff into believing that James would be forced to sell the Park to pay taxes. This misinformation played on Cliff’s known desire to keep the Park intact and operating.
The Pattern of Rapid Will Changes During Medical Crisis
The Everett case demonstrates how rapid succession of will executions during medical emergencies can indicate undue influence. The pattern began with Cliff’s first will, executed when he was healthy and had time for careful consideration with attorney assistance. This will reflected his long-standing intentions developed over years of working with James at the Park.
The second and third wills, executed within eleven days during Cliff’s hospitalization, showed markedly different characteristics. Both were prepared by family members rather than attorneys, both were executed during medical procedures or immediately before surgery, and both dramatically altered Cliff’s estate plan in ways that benefited the children who prepared them.
The timing suggests opportunistic behavior by family members who recognized that Cliff’s illness created vulnerability they could exploit. Rather than respecting his previously expressed wishes, they used his weakened condition and fear about taxes to pressure him into changing his will.
The secrecy surrounding both later wills—keeping James unaware of the changes until after execution—further suggests manipulation. If the changes truly reflected Cliff’s desires, there would be no reason to conceal them from James, who had been his trusted partner in operating the Park.
The immediate actions taken after Cliff’s death also revealed the true intentions of Joe and Geneie. Their firing of personnel, changing bank accounts, and changing locks contradicted Cliff’s stated desire to maintain continuity at the Park and demonstrated their actual plans for the property.
The Takeaway
The Everett decision illustrates how courts analyze patterns of will execution to identify potential undue influence during medical crises. When multiple wills are executed in rapid succession during a testator’s final illness, courts will carefully examine the circumstances to determine whether the documents reflect genuine testamentary intent or result from family manipulation.
The case demonstrates that timing alone can be significant evidence of undue influence. Wills executed during medical procedures, immediately before dangerous surgery, or while testators are sedated raise substantial questions about mental capacity and freedom from influence. Courts will consider whether testators possessed sufficient mental clarity to make important decisions about property distribution.
For families and practitioners, the Everett analysis emphasizes the importance of respecting testators’ previously expressed intentions and avoiding estate planning during medical emergencies. When elderly family members become seriously ill, the appropriate response is to support their recovery rather than to pressure them into changing estate plans that were carefully developed when they possessed full mental capacity. Courts will protect testamentary freedom by invalidating wills that result from manipulation during vulnerable periods, regardless of family members’ claimed justifications for seeking changes.
Do you need help with a probate matter in San Antonio or the surrounding area? We are San Antonio probate attorneys. We help clients navigate the probate process. Call today for a free confidential consultation, (210) 239-8518.
Our San Antonio Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with will contests. 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 probate and estate 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.
