When someone believes they were wrongfully excluded from an inheritance due to family manipulation, they face difficult decisions about pursuing legal remedies. Many people assume that once a will has been probated and the estate distributed, no further legal options exist. However, situations involving alleged tortious interference with inheritance create separate causes of action that operate independently from probate proceedings.
The challenge lies in determining which court has proper venue and jurisdiction over such claims. Family members who believe they were manipulated out of inheritances often discover that their lawsuits must navigate complex jurisdictional rules that depend on whether their claims qualify as probate matters or independent tort actions.
In re Hannah, 431 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014), addresses the venue requirements for tortious interference with inheritance claims and clarifies the distinction between probate proceedings and related tort actions. This case provides an opportunity to examine when inheritance-related disputes fall within probate court jurisdiction versus general civil court authority.
Facts & Procedural History
Julie formed a personal relationship with the decedent and lived with him for 12 years at his home in Aransas County. During their relationship, the decedent executed wills in 2009 and 2010 that bequeathed to Julie $200,000 in cash and a choice of vehicles upon his death. These estate planning documents reflected the decedent’s intention to provide substantially for Julie after their lengthy domestic partnership.
In 2012, the decedent’s health began to deteriorate. Also during 2012, the decedent executed a new will that eliminated all bequests to Julie. Under this revised will, the vehicle that had been designated for Julie was instead bequeathed to Marjorie, a family friend who performed occasional work for the decedent. The $200,000 in cash that Julie was to receive was divided between the decedent’s sons, David and Robert.
Following the decedent’s death in January 2013, David filed an application with the County Court at Law of Aransas County to probate his father’s 2012 will. On February 5, 2013, the Aransas County court signed an order admitting the will to probate as a muniment of title. Julie did not contest the probate of the will or challenge the court’s actions in any way.
On August 15, 2013, Julie filed suit against David, Robert, and Marjorie in Harris County district court. Her lawsuit alleged tortious interference with inheritance, slander, and conspiracy. Julie claimed that during the time the decedent was in failing health in 2012, the defendants engaged in a concerted campaign to interfere with her expected inheritance.
Julie’s petition alleged that “[t]hrough duress, false statements, manipulation, and outright deception, Defendants turned Decedent against Plaintiff and caused Decedent to withdraw the bequest to Plaintiff.” She further alleged that her “bequest had been excluded only because Decedent had been mislead and manipulated into signing a new and changed Will.” Julie sought monetary damages between $200,000 and $1 million based on the value of the inheritance she claimed to have lost.
The defendants filed motions to transfer venue to Aransas County because they argued that Julie’s lawsuit constituted a probate proceeding over which the County Court at Law of Aransas County had continuing jurisdiction and proper venue. The trial court granted both motions and transferred venue to Aransas County. Julie then filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the venue transfer.
What Legal Standards Define Probate Proceedings?
Texas Estates Code Section 31.001 defines “probate proceeding” to include specific categories of actions such as probate of wills, issuance of letters testamentary and administration, heirship determinations, applications regarding estate administration, claims arising from estate administration, settlement of personal representative accounts, and will construction suits. This definition establishes clear boundaries around what constitutes a probate matter requiring specialized court jurisdiction.
The defendants argued that Julie’s lawsuit qualified as a probate proceeding because it related to the decedent’s estate and sought money that Julie claimed should have been received from the estate. However, the court of appeals rejected this characterization based on the fundamental nature of Julie’s claims and the relief she sought.
Julie’s suit was “a claim for money damages against Marjorie, David, and Robert based on the defendants’ alleged conduct in slandering Julie and tortiously interfering with the bequests to Julie in the decedent’s prior wills.” The court emphasized that Julie did “not contest the validity or interpretation of the decedent’s 2012 will, claim herself as a rightful heir of the decedent, assert a claim for money owed by the decedent or the decedent’s estate, or challenge the distribution of the decedent’s property pursuant to the terms of his will.”
This distinction proves fundamental to understanding the boundary between probate proceedings and independent tort claims. Probate proceedings address the validity of wills, the administration of estates, and the distribution of estate property according to established legal procedures. Tort claims against individuals for their conduct in influencing testamentary decisions operate in a separate legal sphere even though they may be motivated by inheritance disappointments.
The court noted that resolution of Julie’s claims “will be determined, not by application of probate law, but rather by the law pertaining to the specific tort claims.” Furthermore, any judgment against the defendants would be satisfied “not from the decedent’s estate, but from the individual assets of the defendants.” This distinction between estate liability and individual defendant liability helps clarify when claims fall outside probate court jurisdiction.
Even if Julie’s lawsuit did not qualify as a probate proceeding itself, it still might have fallen within probate court jurisdiction if it constituted a “matter related to a probate proceeding” under Texas Estates Code Section 31.002. This provision defines related matters to include actions against personal representatives, claims brought by personal representatives, actions for trial of title to estate property, and similar proceedings that directly involve estate administration.
How Do Venue Rules Apply to Inheritance-Related Tort Claims?
Because Julie’s lawsuit did not qualify as either a probate proceeding or a matter related to probate proceedings, the court turned to the general venue provisions in Chapter 15 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Julie had alleged claims for tortious interference with inheritance, slander, and conspiracy against the defendants.
Among these claims, the slander cause of action carried specific mandatory venue requirements under Section 15.017 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. This provision states that “[a] suit for damages for … slander … shall be brought and can only be maintained in the county in which the plaintiff resided at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, … or in the county of the residence of defendants, or any of them, … at the election of the plaintiff.”
Julie was a resident of Travis County while David was a resident of Harris County, Marjorie was a resident of Aransas County, and Robert was a resident of Caldwell County. Under Section 15.017, Julie could elect to file her slander claim in any of these four counties. She chose Harris County based on David’s residence there, which was her right under the statute.
Moreover, because Julie’s slander claim was governed by a mandatory venue provision, her venue election controlled the entire lawsuit under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 15.004. This provision states that when a plaintiff properly joins multiple claims and one claim is governed by mandatory venue provisions, “the suit shall be brought in the county required by the mandatory venue provision.”
The court emphasized that Julie had “provided prima facie proof that venue of the underlying litigation is both proper and mandatory in Harris County” based on her slander claim and her allegation that David resided in Harris County. The defendants had not specifically denied David’s Harris County residence in their pleadings, and their general denials were insufficient to contest the venue allegations.
The procedural requirements reflect the principle that plaintiffs generally have the first choice of venue when multiple proper venues exist. However, this choice can be challenged if defendants follow proper procedures and present evidence that destroys the plaintiff’s prima facie proof of proper venue or demonstrates that a different mandatory venue provision applies. Transfer of venue is appropriate only if defendants demonstrate “that an overriding mandatory venue provision applies or brought forward conclusive evidence that destroys the plaintiff’s prima facie proof.”
The Takeaway
Texas courts distinguish between probate proceedings that must be heard in specialized probate courts and independent tort claims that may arise from inheritance-related disputes but fall within general civil court jurisdiction. Tortious interference with inheritance claims that seek monetary damages from individual defendants based on their alleged conduct in manipulating testamentary decisions do not qualify as probate proceedings even though they involve inheritance disappointments and may use the value of lost bequests as damage measures. When such tort claims include causes of action like slander that have specific mandatory venue requirements, those requirements control venue for the entire lawsuit regardless of the inheritance-related context. Defendants who wish to challenge venue must specifically deny the plaintiff’s venue allegations rather than relying on general denials, and they must present conclusive evidence or applicable mandatory venue provisions to overcome the plaintiff’s prima facie proof of proper venue under the governing statutes.
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 disputes over last minute wills. 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.
