A disinheritance clause in a witnessed and notarized Texas will carries real weight. So when someone shows up in probate court claiming to be a biological child born outside of marriage and says the will was forged, the question is not just whether they can file the contest. It is whether they have any credible evidence to back it up.
That distinction decides cases. A will that names one child and expressly excludes “all other children” does not collapse because someone shows up later with a grievance. The contestant has to come forward with proof, follow the court’s orders, and meet deadlines. When they don’t, the will stands.
The Dallas Court of Appeals worked through this in Estate of Lake Zack Hughes, No. 05-24-00157-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 6, 2026, no pet.). The court had to decide whether a man claiming to be a disinherited, out-of-wedlock son could undo a properly executed will using a handwriting report and little else. The answer was no, and the reasons are worth understanding.
Facts & Procedural History
Lake Zack Hughes signed a will in 2007. Two witnesses watched him sign it and signed their own names attesting to it, and a notary notarized it. The will named his daughter, Carolyn Ann Greer, as his “one child” and said he “exclude[d] and den[ied] all other children.” It left his estate to his wife, then to Carolyn and his two grandchildren if his wife did not survive him.
Lake died on September 20, 2020, at eighty-five. His wife had already passed, so in April 2021 Carolyn applied to probate the will and be appointed independent executrix in Dallas County Probate Court No. 2.
In July 2021, Thoyze Baker Hughes filed a handwritten letter contesting the will. He claimed he was Lake’s biological son, born outside of marriage, and entitled to a share of the estate. His attorney later negotiated a $40,000 settlement and recommended he take it, calling the case “extremely weak both on the facts and the law.” Thoyze refused, and counsel withdrew.
Acting on his own, Thoyze filed a report from Sharon Ottinger, a self-described expert document examiner. She compared Lake’s signatures to four “known signatures” and concluded the will was forged. But the report was not sworn under penalty of perjury, was not based on personal knowledge, and rested on copies rather than the original will. Around the same time, the presiding judge revealed she was “90 percent certain” she had drafted Lake’s will herself in private practice. She disqualified herself, and the case moved to Dallas County Probate Court No. 3.
In the new court, Thoyze retained new counsel. The court ordered him to post $5,600 as security for costs and set the case for a December trial. He missed the security deadline. His second attorney moved to withdraw the day of a follow-up pre-trial hearing. When the court asked whether he had any credible evidence of forgery beyond Ottinger’s report, Thoyze answered: “No.” The court set the matter for a final prove-up. Thoyze did not show up. The will was admitted, letters testamentary issued to Carolyn, and she was appointed independent executrix. Thoyze appealed on his own.
What Does It Take to Contest a Will in Texas?
The Texas Estates Code controls how a will is offered for probate and how interested parties can fight it. Before a will is admitted, a person interested in the estate may file written opposition to the proceeding. See Tex. Estates Code § 55.001. After a will is admitted, an interested person can sue to set it aside within two years, and a forgery or fraud claim runs from when the forgery or fraud was discovered. See Tex. Estates Code § 256.204.
The right to contest is not unlimited. The contestant must have an “interest” in the estate, meaning they stand to gain financially if the will is set aside. A person claiming to be a biological child born outside of marriage can clear that bar. But standing only gets you in the door. Once the will’s proponent makes a prima facie case for validity—usually by presenting the will, the application, and proof of death—the burden shifts to the contestant to produce actual evidence. In a forgery claim, that means credible proof that the testator did not sign the document.
Texas recognizes several grounds for contesting a will: lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, and forgery. Each one requires real evidence. A will contest is not a free pass to make the proponent disprove every theory you can imagine. The contestant carries the burden, and here, that burden went unmet.
Why a Witnessed and Notarized Will Is Hard to Beat
Texas sets specific formal requirements for a valid attested will. Under Tex. Estates Code § 251.051, the will must be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested by two or more credible witnesses who sign in their own handwriting in the testator’s presence. Those requirements exist to create contemporaneous, observable proof that the testator personally executed the document.
Notarization adds another layer. When a notary signs and seals, the notary certifies that the signer appeared in person and signed in front of them. A notarized will plus two attesting witnesses gives the proponent a strong evidentiary foundation—one a contestant has to actually overcome, not just question.
That is why a forgery claim against a witnessed and notarized will faces a steep climb. To win, the contestant has to contradict the firsthand observations of at least two living witnesses and a notary, all present at the signing. A handwriting report based on copies does not erase that. The trial court understood the difference and said so.
Ottinger’s report had real problems. It was not made under penalty of perjury and carried no declaration based on personal knowledge—the kind of verification courts expect from an expert report offered instead of live testimony. It compared only four “known signatures,” a thin sample for a conclusion as serious as forgery. And it analyzed copies, not the original will. Texas courts weigh expert testimony for reliability: sound methodology, sufficient facts, and real help to the fact finder. A report built on copies, a handful of comparison signatures, and no sworn verification does not clear that bar. At the November 9 hearing, the court flagged exactly these problems, found the report not credible against the attestation and notarization, and gave Thoyze a direct chance to point to other evidence. He had none.
Security for Costs Can End a Will Contest by Itself
One often-overlooked tool in Texas probate litigation is the court’s authority to make a contestant post security for costs. Tex. Estates Code § 53.052 lets the clerk require a person who files an application, complaint, or opposition relating to an estate—someone other than the personal representative—to provide security for the probable costs of the proceeding. The point is to protect the estate and its beneficiaries from footing the bill for a challenge that goes nowhere.
Here, the successor court ordered Thoyze to deposit $5,600 by a set date to cover estimated attorney’s fees, mediation fees, and related costs. The deadline came and went. The court did not treat that as a minor slip. It was one of the independent grounds for declining to set the case for a contested trial.
The Texas Supreme Court addressed the stakes of missing a security order in Clanton v. Clark, 639 S.W.2d 929 (Tex. 1982), reviewing under an abuse-of-discretion standard a trial court’s dismissal of a will contestant’s case for failing to timely post security. The Court upheld the trial court’s broad discretion. The lesson is plain: a security-for-costs order is not optional. Ignore it, and the contest can be over—no matter what arguments you might have made.
No Jury Trial When There’s Nothing to Try
On appeal, Thoyze argued the court denied him his right to a jury trial by holding a prove-up instead of a contested trial. That reflects a common misunderstanding of how jury rights work in Texas probate cases.
The Texas Constitution guarantees a jury trial in Article I, Section 15, and Tex. Estates Code § 55.002 extends that right to contested probate proceedings. But it is not unconditional. When a party cannot raise a genuine material fact issue, there is nothing for a jury to decide, and proceeding without one does not violate the constitution. The court relied on Lattrell v. Chrysler Corp., 79 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. denied), for that point: no disputed fact, no required jury.
Thoyze also invoked the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees civil jury trials in federal court. That failed for a structural reason—the Seventh Amendment has never been applied to the states. In Texas civil cases, jury rights come from Texas law, not the federal Bill of Rights. His demand also had a timing problem. Both sides told the court at the November 2 hearing the case would be tried to the bench. His new attorney filed a jury demand on November 8 but never raised it at the November 9 hearing. Under Browder v. Moree, 659 S.W.3d 421 (Tex. 2022), a party who has perfected a jury demand must tell the court about it when the court signals it intends to proceed without a jury. Staying quiet and raising it for the first time on appeal is too late.
It is also worth knowing what a prove-up is, since that is how this estate was admitted. A prove-up is the standard way an uncontested will gets admitted to probate. The proponent presents the will and offers testimony or sworn statements showing the testator is deceased, the will was properly executed, and the proponent is entitled to have it admitted. Because Thoyze had no credible evidence, had blown the security deadline, and had not exchanged witness lists, exhibits, or expert designations, the court found no real factual dispute to try. The prove-up went forward on November 13, 2023, Thoyze did not attend, and the will was admitted. The court did extend his appellate deadline under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3—but a procedural courtesy was about all that remained for a contest that had collapsed at nearly every stage below. See Goldstein v. Sabatino, 690 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. 2024) (pro se litigants are held to the same rules as represented parties).
The Takeaway
Texas probate courts do not sit back when a will contest has no evidence behind it. Hughes shows how the pieces of Texas probate litigation—disinheritance clauses, security-for-costs orders, scheduling deadlines, and prove-up procedures—work together to protect a validly executed will from a challenge that is more grievance than genuine dispute.
The practical lesson cuts both ways. If you are the proponent of a witnessed, notarized will with a clear disinheritance clause, that document is hard to undo. If you are thinking about contesting one, understand what it takes: credible, admissible evidence—not a handwriting report built on copies, stripped of sworn verification, and based on a few comparison signatures. Missing security deadlines, ignoring scheduling orders, and telling the court on the record that you have no other evidence are not isolated missteps. Together, they are the basis on which a court can refuse to hold a trial at all, and on which an appellate court will affirm.
Our Austin Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with will contests and disputes over disinheritance clauses. 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 that 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.
