Blended families face unique challenges when a loved one dies without a will in Texas. Step-parents, step-children, and biological children have to navigate complex inheritance rules that depend heavily on family relationships.
The stakes can be very higher when community property is involved. Distribution of community property can shift between a surviving spouse and children when there are children who are not the biological children of both spouses.
So what happens when someone provides false testimony about parentage during probate proceedings to maximize their inheritance? This deception can alter how the estate gets distributed under Texas intestacy laws. An example is when a step-parent falsely claims that their deceased spouse’s children are also their biological children, resulting in 100% of the community property going to the surviving spouse.
The Court of Appeals of Texas recently addressed this scenario in Rodriguez v. McDow, 2025 WL 700850 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2025). This case gets into the process to fix this type of injustice.
Facts & Procedural History
The decedent died intestate on December 29, 2020. She was survived by her husband and both biological and step-children. For the children, the decedent had two children: a son, whom she had with her husband during their marriage, and a daughter, who was born before the decedent’s marriage to her husband from her relationship with another man. The husband never adopted the daughter.
The daughter had four children of her own. When the decedent died, the youngest granddaughter was only 16 years old and living with her mother. Both the daughter and son filed disclaimers of their interests in the decedent’s estate, which under Texas law would pass their shares to their descendants.
During the heirship proceedings in 2022, the husband testified that both the daughter and son were children “born of his marriage” to the decedent. Other witnesses, including family members, supported this testimony by stating that the daughter and son were the biological children of both the decedent and her husband. Based on this testimony and the disclaimers filed by the daughter and son, the probate court signed a Judgment of Heirship awarding the husband 100% of the decedent’s community property.
However, this testimony was false. The daughter was not the husband’s biological child, and he had never adopted her. The daughter’s birth certificate, which did not list a father’s name, supported her testimony that her biological father was another man, not the husband. The false testimony about the daughter’s parentage had significant consequences for estate distribution under Texas community property laws.
In March 2023, the granddaughter filed a petition for a bill of review, challenging the Judgment Declaring Heirship. She argued that she was entitled to notice of the original proceedings as the decedent’s heir, that she never received such notice, and that the judgment contained substantial errors regarding the distribution of community property. After a hearing on the bill of review, the probate court ruled in the granddaughter’s favor, setting aside the original judgment. The husband appealed this decision, which resulted in the current court opinion.
Bills of Review Under the Texas Estates Code
The Texas Estates Code provides a mechanism for challenging final probate judgments through a statutory bill of review. Section 55.251 of the Texas Estates Code allows “[a]n interested person” to “have an order or judgment rendered by the court revised and corrected on a showing of error in the order or judgment.” This remedy is available when the judgment is no longer appealable or subject to a motion for new trial–which means that the judgement is old.
The bill of review serves as a direct attack on a judgment that has become final. Unlike appeals, which must be filed within specific time limits after judgment, a bill of review can be filed up to two years after the date of the order or judgment. This extended timeframe recognizes that errors in probate proceedings may not become apparent immediately, particularly when interested parties were not properly notified of the original proceedings.
To succeed on a bill of review, the moving party must prove that the trial court committed substantial error by a preponderance of the evidence. The error need not appear on the face of the record and may be proved through testimony and evidence at trial. Courts review decisions on bills of review for abuse of discretion, indulging every presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling.
False Testimony Constitutes Substantial Error in Probate Proceedings
The case shows how false testimony about family relationships can constitute substantial error warranting reversal of a probate judgment.
When the husband testified that the daughter was born “of his marriage” to the decedent, and when other witnesses confirmed that the daughter was his biological child, they provided the factual foundation for the court’s distribution of community property.
This false testimony was not merely incidental to the proceedings. Under Texas community property law, the distribution of a deceased spouse’s community property interest depends heavily on whether the surviving spouse is the parent of the deceased spouse’s children. When both spouses are parents of all children, the surviving spouse may receive a larger share. When some children are not children of the surviving spouse, the distribution changes dramatically.
The court found that the false testimony directly impacted the estate distribution. The trial court’s findings stated that the “untruthful response(s) that the decedent’s spouse was the biological parent of the decedent’s children resulted in [the husband’s] assignment of 100% of the decedent’s community property as opposed to 0% which would have been the case had a truthful answer been given.”
This finding illustrates how false testimony about parentage can completely alter estate distribution. The difference between receiving 100% of community property versus 0% represents a substantial error that warrants correction through a bill of review.
Community Property Distribution When Children Are Not Shared
Texas community property law creates different distribution schemes depending on whether the deceased spouse’s children are also children of the surviving spouse. Section 201.003 of the Texas Estates Code governs this distribution and creates a distinction that proved dispositive in Rodriguez.
Under Section 201.003(a), when a married person dies intestate, the community estate passes to the surviving spouse if the deceased spouse is not survived by children or other descendants. However, subsection (c) creates a different rule when the deceased spouse is survived by children who are not also children of the surviving spouse. In such cases, “the deceased spouse’s undivided one-half interest in the community estate passes to the deceased spouse’s children or other descendants.”
This distinction reflects the legislature’s intent to protect children from prior relationships when a parent remarries. If the surviving spouse could always inherit the deceased spouse’s community property interest, children from prior relationships might be disinherited entirely. The law balances the interests of surviving spouses with the inheritance rights of children who are not related to the surviving spouse.
In the case, the decedent’s community property interest should have passed to her descendants rather than to her husband because the daughter was not the husband’s child. When the daughter disclaimed her interest, that share should have passed to her children under the disclaimer provisions of the Texas Property Code. The false testimony about the daughter’s parentage circumvented this protective mechanism and denied the decedent’s grandchildren their rightful inheritance.
Why Notice Requirements Matter for Minor Heirs
The case also highlights the importance of notice requirements in probate proceedings, particularly when minor heirs are involved. Section 202.051 of the Texas Estates Code requires that citation in heirship proceedings “must be served by a qualified delivery method on each distributee who is 12 years of age or older and whose name and address are known or can be ascertained through the exercise of reasonable diligence.”
The granddaughter was 16 years old when the decedent died and would have been entitled to notice of the heirship proceedings if she had been identified as an heir. The evidence showed that the husband knew where the granddaughter lived with her mother, making her whereabouts ascertainable through reasonable diligence. However, because of the false testimony about family relationships, the granddaughter was not identified as an heir and therefore did not receive notice.
The notice requirement serves an important protective function for minor heirs who cannot advocate for themselves in probate proceedings. When adults disclaim their interests, those interests may pass to minor children who need court protection. The requirement that minors receive notice ensures that their interests are considered even when their parents or guardians choose to disclaim.
The failure to provide notice to the granddaughter compounded the harm caused by the false testimony. Not only was the estate distributed incorrectly based on false information, but the rightful heir was denied the opportunity to participate in the proceedings that determined her inheritance rights.
The Takeaway
False testimony during probate proceedings can have far-reaching consequences for estate distribution. When family members misrepresent parentage relationships to maximize their inheritance under community property laws, they may successfully obtain court judgments that deprive rightful heirs of their inheritance shares. However, such false testimony constitutes substantial error that can be challenged through a bill of review under the Texas Estates Code. This case demonstrates the importance of accurate testimony about family relationships in probate proceedings. Courts rely on witness testimony to determine heirship, and false information can lead to incorrect distributions that persist for years. The two-year limitation period for bills of review provides some protection for parties who discover errors after judgments become final, but the burden remains on the moving party to prove substantial error by a preponderance of the evidence.
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. 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.
