Background
Victoria Kubiak died in 2021 at age 99. Her daughter, Wanda Noskrent, offered a will for probate, but Victoria’s grandson, Zachary Kubiak, contested it on grounds of incapacity, undue influence, and fraud. A jury found that Victoria had testamentary capacity, that the will was valid, and that neither undue influence nor fraud had been established. The probate court admitted the will to probate and authorized letters testamentary.
Before trial, the parties disputed Zachary’s production of medical and pharmacy records that he had indicated could support his claims. After multiple motions and orders compelling production, the probate court sanctioned Zachary $7,727 for attorney’s fees caused by his noncompliance. On appeal, he challenged the sanctions and production order, the admission of testimony from estate-planning attorney Laura Jennett and granddaughter Denise Sparks, and the resulting judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the probate court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Zachary to produce Dr. James Kendrick’s and Walgreens’s records or by imposing the attorney-fee sanction. Zachary waived an objection that the records were outside his possession, custody, or control by failing to assert it timely. Independently, Texas statutes gave him a right to obtain the decedent’s relevant records equal or superior to that of the providers possessing them, placing the records within his control for discovery purposes.
The court also rejected Zachary’s reliance on the motion-in-limine ruling. Such a ruling merely required the parties to approach the court before presenting specified evidence; it did not conclusively exclude the witnesses’ testimony. Finally, identifying Denise as the decedent’s granddaughter adequately described her connection to a dispute concerning the testator’s capacity and susceptibility to undue influence. The disclosure rules required only a brief statement of that connection, not a narrative summary of her expected testimony.
Key Takeaways
- A party can waive an objection that requested documents are outside its possession, custody, or control by failing to state that objection timely and specifically.
- A motion-in-limine ruling generally regulates how evidence is presented to the court for a ruling and does not itself determine admissibility or preserve evidentiary error.
- Describing a proposed witness as the decedent’s granddaughter adequately stated her connection to this will contest; a summary of her expected testimony was not required.
Why It Matters
The opinion underscores that Texas probate litigants who rely on a decedent’s medical condition must diligently obtain and produce relevant healthcare records when they have a statutory right to them. Subpoenaing a third-party provider does not necessarily eliminate the litigant’s own discovery obligations.
It also distinguishes a motion in limine from an evidentiary exclusion order and confirms that witness disclosures may be concise when the identified relationship itself sufficiently explains the witness’s relevance to the case.