Breaking NewsLaw.com and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Friday Feb. 26 9 PM US EST to Saturday Feb. 27 6 AM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.

 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Mary Lou Wilcox and her brothers, H. Douglas Wilcox (Doug), Rex E. Wilcox, and Peter V. Wilcox were named as beneficiaries under the will of their mother, Irma Lou Wilcox. The will named Doug and Rex as independent coexecutors and Peter as an alternate coexecutor. After the will was admitted to probate, Mary Lou sued Doug, Rex and Peter, as well as an accountant and his firm. Mary Lou alleged numerous causes of action, including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, negligence, professional malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and tortious interference with inheritance rights. Mary Lou also sought a “full, complete, truthful and lawful inventory and accounting of the properties of the Estate.” Peter filed a hybrid motion for summary judgment. The trial court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Peter and severed Mary Lou’s claims against Peter into a separate cause. After the trial court granted summary judgment, Peter filed a motion seeking attorney’s fees pursuant to �243 of the Probate Code. The trial court entered an order awarding Peter attorney’s fees in the amount of $18,287.50. Mary Lou then filed this appeal. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. The will of Irma Lou was offered and duly admitted to probate, and no will contest was filed. Mary Lou’s claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, negligence, professional malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and tortious interference with inheritance assert that Peter and the other defendants are liable to her as tortfeasors. Because Peter incurred attorney’s fees defending himself against Mary Lou’s allegations of his personal wrongdoing rather than defending the will as a beneficiary, Peter’s claim for attorney’s fees does not fall within the purview of Texas Probate Code �243. OPINION:McKeithen, C.J.; McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.