pjc-family-2024-lib

PJC 230.6

W ILL C ONTESTS

Source. The elements of fraud in the foregoing submission are adapted from those in PJC 105.2 in the current edition of Texas Pattern Jury Charges—Business, Consumer, Insurance & Employment and the cases cited in the comment to that PJC. See also, e.g., Collins , 53 S.W.3d at 838–39. The definitions of “misrepresentation” are based on those in PJC 105.3A–.3E and the cases cited in the comments to those PJCs. The foregoing question, unlike the question in PJC 105.1, does not identify a spe cific person alleged to have committed fraud, because in a will contest the identity of the actor is immaterial. Item 4 in the list differs from the analogous item in PJC 105.2 because the injury is the creation of the will itself. A finding of fraudulent inducement is sufficient to set aside the will. Collins , 53 S.W.3d at 838. Use of “or.” If more than one definition of “misrepresentation” is used, each must be separated by the word or , because a finding of any one type of misrepresentation would support recovery. See Lundy v. Masson , 260 S.W.3d 482, 494 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied). When to use. The foregoing instructions are appropriate if there is an allegation of intentional misrepresentation. If fraud through failure to disclose information when there is a duty to disclose is alleged, adapt PJC 105.4. Burden of proof. Fraud in the inducement of a will is considered a species of undue influence. Curry , 270 S.W.2d at 214. The party claiming a will was procured through fraud has the burden of proof on this question. In re Estate of Graham , 69 S.W.3d 598, 612 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2001, no pet.).

228