## Facts

- Frankie Tinney had four children: Cora Carpenter, Clifton Tinney, Dor Tinney, and Milton Tinney; her husband was W. I. Tinney.
- Frankie executed a will leaving the bulk of her estate to Dor and Milton.
- The will made nominal bequests of five dollars each to Cora, Clifton, and W. I.
- Frankie’s stated reason for favoring Dor and Milton was her belief that W. I. had made a will that would leave most of his estate to Cora and Clifton, producing an overall equal result across both parents’ estates.
- W. I. predeceased Frankie, and no effective will benefiting Cora and Clifton was found or probated.
- After W. I.’s death, Frankie attempted to probate a claimed lost will under which she would be the sole beneficiary.
- Frankie lived about two years after W. I.’s death and did not revoke or change her own will.
- After Frankie’s death, Cora contested probate, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence by Dor and Milton, and fraud or mistake (arguing the will rested on a mistaken belief about W. I.’s supposed compensating will).

## Issues

1. Whether an unambiguous will may be reformed or denied probate because the testatrix acted under a mistake of fact about an external matter (a spouse’s supposed complementary will).
2. Whether legally sufficient evidence required submission of undue influence to the jury.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of testamentary capacity.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment admitting the will to probate.
- The court upheld the jury finding that Frankie had testamentary capacity.
- The court upheld the trial court’s refusal to submit an undue influence issue for lack of sufficient supporting evidence.
- The court rejected the request to alter the dispositive plan, holding it had no authority to rewrite an unambiguous will to correct an alleged mistake of fact.

## Legal Principles

- Texas courts may construe ambiguous testamentary language, but may not rewrite or reform an unambiguous will based on extrinsic proof that the testator’s motives were mistaken or that the testator intended a different distribution.
- A mistake of fact influencing a testator’s reasons for making a will does not, by itself, invalidate an otherwise properly executed will or authorize judicial reallocation of the estate.
- Testamentary capacity focuses on whether the testator understood the nature of the act, the property, the natural objects of bounty, and the disposition being made; capacity is not negated merely because assumptions motivating the will were incorrect.
- Undue influence requires evidence of coercion or domination that overcomes the testator’s free agency; opportunity or unequal treatment among heirs is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the will as written, holding that an unambiguous will cannot be reformed to correct a testatrix’s alleged mistake about external facts, and it affirmed probate because the evidence supported testamentary capacity and did not warrant an undue influence submission.


Carpenter v. Tinney, 420 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1967, writ ref’d n.r.e.)