Background
Van L. “Slim” Crapps executed a 29-page will on February 5, 2019. After execution, Crapps removed and destroyed the last three pages—including Exhibit A containing specific bequests—in the presence of his wife Lucielle. Lucielle testified that Slim orally declared the remaining 26 pages constituted his will, but no witnesses observed this alteration, and Slim did not re-sign the document.
Crapps died on March 31, 2021. Lucielle and Slim’s attorney Hunter Schuehle filed to probate the 26-page document. Crapps’s son, Van Kevin Christiansen, contested the will, arguing it was invalid because pages were missing and because Slim had been unduly influenced. A jury trial in November 2024 found the 26-page document was properly executed and valid. Christiansen appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The court reversed the trial court’s judgment in part. The appellate court held that the evidence conclusively established—as a matter of law—that Crapps altered his will after its February 5, 2019 execution. The trial jury’s contrary finding had no evidentiary support: Lucielle, the notary, and both witnesses all testified the original will consisted of 29 pages.
Critically, Texas Estates Code § 253.002 mandates that a will can be revoked or altered only through a subsequent will, codicil, or written declaration “executed with like formalities,” or by physical destruction. The court held that because Crapps’s post-execution alteration was not witnessed by two competent witnesses and Slim did not re-sign the document, the 26-page altered will could not be admitted to probate as a matter of law. The court remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Post-execution alterations to a will must comply with the same formal execution requirements as the original will—testimony and oral declarations are insufficient.
- When reviewing legal sufficiency challenges to jury verdicts, courts must examine the record for any evidence supporting the finding; if none exists, the opposite proposition is established as a matter of law.
- A testator’s unwitnessed destruction of pages, followed only by an oral declaration, does not effectively alter a validly executed will.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Texas’s strict formality requirements for will execution and alteration. Testators and their families cannot rely on informal methods—such as destroying pages and making oral declarations—to modify wills after execution. The ruling protects the integrity of wills by requiring that any post-execution changes follow statutory procedures designed to prevent fraud and ensure testamentary intent is clear and witnessed.
For practitioners, the decision clarifies that when a will has been formally executed with witnesses and acknowledgment, any subsequent changes by the testator must be formalized through a codicil or new will with proper execution formalities. Unwitnessed alterations, regardless of the testator’s stated intent, are legally ineffective.