When someone dies owning property in Texas, their heirs often face a practical problem. The county deed records show a deed to their deceased relative from decades ago. However, nothing in those records traces the property forward to the current generation. Many families assume they can bridge this gap by preparing an affidavit of heirship and filing it in the county records.
This assumption seems reasonable. After all, the county clerk will accept and record these affidavits. Once recorded, a certified copy can be obtained. The question is then whether courts must accept these affidavits as proof in contested litigation.
Can an affidavit of heirship alone establish inheritance in a lawsuit, or must the people who prepared it actually come to court and testify? The case of Compton v. WWV Enterprises, 679 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1984, no writ), provides an answer that surprised many practitioners and fundamentally changed how Texas courts handle these documents.
Facts & Procedural History
The dispute in Compton centered on who owned a fractional property interest that traced back to a 1919 deed. In that deed, N.A. Stepp conveyed certain rights to M.W. Myers of California. Myers died in 1966. A group of individuals claiming to be his heirs filed suit to establish their ownership of the interest Myers had received decades earlier.
The entire case depended on three affidavits of heirship. Two affidavits discussed the family history of Martin W. Myers. They stated he was born in Iowa in 1875 and died on May 21, 1966, in Lone Pine, California. Both indicated that Myers outlived his parents, his wife (the sole beneficiary under his will), and all seven of his siblings. According to these affidavits, Myers left four heirs who were nieces and nephews.
The third affidavit detailed the family history of one of those nieces, Gladys Landmark Hyde. It stated she died intestate in 1967 in California. This affidavit identified her heirs as her husband and three children.
The timing of these affidavits raised immediate questions. Two were prepared after the lawsuit began. The third was prepared less than one year before filing. These were not longstanding family records. They were documents created specifically to establish the family’s claim in anticipated or pending litigation.
At trial, the property owners objected to admission of the affidavits on hearsay grounds. The attorneys for the claimants argued the affidavits were admissible under Texas Rules of Evidence 803(14) and (15) along with Rule 902(4). They made no attempt to offer the affidavits under Rule 804(b)(3). The trial court admitted the affidavits and ruled in favor of the claimants. The property owners appealed.
Understanding Hearsay and Why It Matters
Hearsay presents one of the most fundamental barriers in any trial. The rule against hearsay generally prohibits a witness from testifying about what someone else said outside of court when offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. An affidavit of heirship is hearsay. It contains out-of-court statements by the person who signed it, and those statements are offered to prove that the family relationships described are actually true.
The concern underlying the hearsay rule is reliability. Courts prefer testimony from witnesses who can be cross-examined. When a witness testifies in person, the opposing party can ask questions to test their knowledge, expose potential bias, and challenge inconsistencies. The judge or jury can observe the witness’s demeanor and assess credibility. None of this is possible with a written statement prepared outside the courtroom.
Texas law recognizes numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule. These exceptions apply when certain guarantees of reliability exist despite the out-of-court nature of the statement. The Texas Rules of Evidence divide hearsay exceptions into two categories with fundamentally different approaches.
Rule 803 contains exceptions where the availability of the declarant is immaterial. These exceptions rest on the theory that certain types of statements are inherently reliable. The circumstances under which the statement was made provide sufficient trustworthiness that cross-examination would add little value. Business records fall into this category because they are made in the regular course of business with built-in incentives for accuracy. Excited utterances qualify because they are made under the stress of a startling event before the declarant has time to fabricate.
Rule 804 takes a different approach. It permits certain hearsay only when the declarant cannot testify. The requirement of unavailability reflects a judgment that live testimony subject to cross-examination is always preferable when possible. Only when that option is foreclosed does the law accept the hearsay substitute.
Rule 804 defines unavailability to include several specific situations. The declarant might be dead. They might claim a privilege not to testify. They might refuse to testify despite a court order. They might lack any memory of the subject matter. They might be unable to be present due to physical or mental illness. In each scenario, the party offering the hearsay must prove that the declarant actually is unavailable. Simply preferring to use an affidavit rather than live testimony does not satisfy this requirement.
What Rule 803(14) and (15) Actually Cover
The claimants in Compton relied on two exceptions found in Rule 803. They argued that affidavits of heirship qualify as documents affecting an interest in property. Understanding why the court rejected this argument requires examining what these provisions were designed to accomplish.
Rule 803(14) makes admissible “the record of a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property” when that record comes from a public office authorized by statute to record such documents. This exception serves a practical function in real estate transactions. It allows recorded instruments like deeds and mortgages to be proven through certified copies from the county clerk without calling the parties who executed them.
Rule 803(15) permits admission of “a statement contained in a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property” if the statement was relevant to the document’s purpose. This allows proof not just of the document itself but of recitals within the document. A deed might recite that the grantor acquired title from a previous owner or that the property is subject to certain restrictions. These statements can be admitted to prove the facts stated.
The key phrase in both rules is “document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property.” Consider what this means in practice. A deed establishes an interest because it transfers title from grantor to grantee. The grantor’s signature on the deed accomplishes the transfer. A mortgage affects an interest because it creates a lien on property. The act of executing and recording the mortgage creates enforceable rights.
An affidavit of heirship operates differently. It does not create or transfer any property interest. The affiant’s signature does not accomplish any legal change in ownership. Instead, the affidavit merely describes family relationships and events that occurred in the past. Those relationships and events may have legal significance for determining who inherited property. However, the affidavit itself is simply evidence about something that already happened.
The inheritance occurred by operation of law at the moment of death. Texas intestacy statutes dictate who inherits property when someone dies without a will. These rules operate automatically without any document being signed. The affidavit of heirship comes later. It describes what the affiant believes happened under these intestacy rules. The affidavit is evidence about inheritance, not the legal instrument that accomplished the inheritance.
The Court’s Analysis: Why Affidavits Belong Under Rule 804
The Eastland Court of Appeals held that affidavits of heirship fall within a different hearsay exception altogether. Specifically, they fit under Rule 804(b)(3), which addresses statements of personal or family history. This exception recognizes that family members often have reliable information about births, deaths, marriages, and relationships within their family.
Rule 804(b)(3) contains two parts. Subsection (A) permits statements concerning the declarant’s own family history. Subsection (B) permits statements about another person’s family history if the declarant was related to that person or intimately associated with their family. Both subsections reflect the reality that family information often passes through oral tradition and personal knowledge rather than formal documentation.
Family members typically attend weddings and funerals. They know their siblings, parents, and children. They learn about aunts, uncles, and cousins through family gatherings and conversations. When they make statements about these relationships, the statements carry a degree of inherent reliability. The declarant usually has no reason to lie about basic family facts. These statements often relate to matters repeated and reinforced over time within the family.
However, Rule 804(b)(3) requires that the declarant be unavailable as a witness. This requirement is not arbitrary. It reflects a fundamental preference in our legal system for live testimony when possible. If the person who knows about the family history can come to court, they should testify in person. Their credibility can then be tested through cross-examination. Their demeanor can be observed. The opposing party can probe the basis of their knowledge and reveal any gaps or inconsistencies.
The court in Compton explained this distinction clearly: “Hearsay exceptions 14 and 15 under Rule 803 must therefore be construed to relate to recitals or statements made in deeds, leases, mortgages and other such ‘documents affecting an interest in property’ and not to affidavits of heirship which more properly fall within the hearsay exception stated under Rule 804(b)(3).”
This interpretation prevents parties from circumventing the unavailability requirement. Without this rule, anyone could manufacture evidence by preparing affidavits and recording them. The affiants would never need to testify or subject themselves to cross-examination. The opposing party could not test their knowledge, bias, or credibility. This would undermine the foundational principle that live testimony is preferable to written statements prepared outside the courtroom.
Why Rule 902 Does Not Save the Affidavits
The claimants in Compton made another argument. They pointed to Rule 902(4), which addresses self-authenticating documents. A certified copy of a recorded instrument is self-authenticating under this rule. The county clerk’s certification establishes that the document is what it purports to be without additional testimony. The claimants argued this rule allowed admission of their certified affidavits.
The court rejected this argument because authentication and admissibility are separate concepts. Authentication merely establishes that a document is genuine. It proves that the affidavit is actually the document that was recorded in the county records. However, establishing authenticity does not overcome hearsay objections.
Consider how this works with other documents. A certified copy of a deed is self-authenticating. The county clerk’s certificate proves the deed was executed and recorded. However, if someone wanted to prove that statements within the deed are true (beyond simply proving what the deed says), they would still need to satisfy hearsay rules. The certification proves the document exists. It does not prove that everything stated in the document is accurate.
The same principle applies to affidavits of heirship. The county clerk’s certification proves that someone signed the affidavit and it was recorded. The certification does not prove that the family relationships described in the affidavit are correct. To prove those relationships in contested litigation, the hearsay rule must be satisfied.
The Texas Estates Code Five-Year Rule
The court in Compton also addressed Texas Probate Code Section 52 (now recodified as Texas Estates Code Section 203.001). This statute provides special treatment for affidavits of heirship that have been of record for five years or more at the time suit is filed. Such long-recorded affidavits carry a presumption of correctness and can be used as evidence of the facts stated.
The five-year requirement serves an important gatekeeping function. It ensures that affidavits admitted under this provision have existed for a substantial period before litigation. This guards against affidavits prepared specifically for a lawsuit. It also provides time for interested parties to discover and challenge incorrect affidavits. An affidavit that remains unchallenged in the public records for five years carries more weight than a freshly prepared one.
None of the three affidavits in Compton met the five-year threshold. Two were prepared after the lawsuit began. The third was prepared less than a year before filing. Therefore, they could not be admitted under the statutory exception. This left only the general hearsay exceptions in the Rules of Evidence as possible grounds for admission.
The interaction between the Texas Estates Code and the Rules of Evidence can create confusion. The Estates Code provisions on affidavits of heirship provide a special evidentiary rule for affidavits meeting certain requirements. When an affidavit satisfies these requirements, it becomes admissible despite the hearsay rule. However, affidavits that do not meet the statutory criteria must still satisfy the general hearsay exceptions.
The Remand Decision and What It Means
The Eastland Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for new trial. This decision deserves attention because the court could have simply rendered judgment against the claimants. Instead, the court gave them another opportunity to prove their case properly.
The court explained that the people who made the inadmissible affidavits could testify in person or by deposition about the family history. Rule 803(19) permits live testimony about family history without any hearsay concerns. A witness can testify about family relationships based on their personal knowledge or what they learned from family tradition. This testimony comes directly from the witness stand where credibility can be tested.
Alternatively, if the claimants could prove that the affiants were unavailable under Rule 804(a), then the affidavits themselves would become admissible under Rule 804(b)(3). The claimants would need to show that each affiant had died, could not be located after diligent search, or was unable to testify due to illness. With proper proof of unavailability, the written statements about family history would be admissible.
This approach reflects the difference between a procedural error and a substantive failure of proof. The claimants may well have had accurate information about their family relationships. They simply presented it in an inadmissible form. Remand allowed them to cure this problem by either producing live witnesses or establishing unavailability. Rendering judgment against them would have foreclosed any possibility of proving facts that might be true.
The Takeaway
The Compton decision establishes clear guidelines for attorneys handling probate litigation where heirship is contested. Affidavits of heirship cannot serve as standalone proof unless they meet specific requirements. Either the affidavits must have been of record for five years before suit was filed, or the party must prove that the affiants are unavailable and cannot testify. Simply recording an affidavit and obtaining a certified copy is insufficient in contested litigation. The preference for testimony subject to cross-examination overrides the convenience of paper affidavits prepared for litigation.
Do you need help with a probate matter in Austin or the surrounding area? We are Austin probate attorneys. We help clients navigate the probate process. Call today for a free confidential consultation, 512-273-7444.
Our Austin Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with probate administrations and affidavits of heirship. 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.
