Robert Nguyen had been named executor of his father's estate in 2020, when William Nguyen signed his will at the age of seventy-three. William was a retired civil engineer who had lived in McKinney since 1994, in a house he and his late wife had purchased in the Stonebridge Ranch community during the neighborhood's early development. He had been a deliberate man all his life — the kind of person who updated his smoke detector batteries on a schedule and kept his insurance policies in a labeled folder in a fireproof box in the master closet. Naming Robert as executor had seemed natural. Robert lived thirty minutes away in Frisco. His sister Angela, fifty and living in Sacramento, had been geographically distant for more than a decade.
William died in March 2026, at seventy-nine, from a progressive neurological condition that had been diagnosed in 2022. Robert filed the will for probate in the Collin County Probate Court. Six weeks later, the court issued letters testamentary in his name. Robert began doing what executors do: he contacted the financial institutions, filed the inventory, published the creditor notice in a local paper, and began collecting the documentation he would need to distribute the estate — a McKinney home appraised at $490,000, investment accounts totaling $298,000, and a modest checking balance. The will split everything equally between Robert and Angela after the small bequests to William's church and a local veterans group.
Sixty-three days after letters testamentary were issued, a package arrived from a law firm in Sacramento. The package contained a formal notice of intent to contest the will. Angela was challenging it on two grounds: first, that William lacked testamentary capacity when he signed the 2020 will, because his neurological diagnosis had begun affecting his cognition before the document was executed; and second, that Robert had exercised undue influence over their father — pointing out that Robert had lived nearby, managed William's finances, driven him to appointments, and helped him maintain the property during his decline.
Robert called a personal injury attorney he trusted. Good attorney. Wrong fit for this. The attorney listened, then said something that rearranged Robert's entire understanding of the situation: defending the will is not your job alone. It is the estate's job. And the estate pays for it.
The Misunderstanding That Costs Texas Executors Thousands
Most people named as executor in a Texas will have never served in that role before. They understand, roughly, that they are responsible for collecting the estate's assets, paying its debts, and distributing what remains to the beneficiaries the will names. What they rarely anticipate is being on the receiving end of litigation — and when it happens, they make a mistake that costs them money they never had to spend.
The mistake: treating the will contest as a personal lawsuit against themselves, and hiring an attorney with their own funds to defend their personal reputation.
Texas law draws a critical distinction that Robert's personal-injury attorney had immediately recognized. When a will is contested, the executor's legal obligation is to defend the probate of the will on behalf of the estate. The estate — not the executor personally — is the party with the interest in the will's validity. And because it is the estate's fight, it is the estate's resources that pay for the defense. The executor's attorney fees for defending the validity of the will are a legitimate expense of estate administration, properly charged against estate assets under the framework of the Texas Estates Code.
For Robert, this was not a small distinction. A contested will proceeding can run $30,000 to $100,000 or more in attorney fees by the time depositions, expert witnesses, and potential trial are factored in. If Robert had paid those fees from his own account while defending the will, he might have spent his own inheritance before the proceeding concluded. Paid from the estate, those fees were a shared cost — borne proportionally from the assets Angela and Robert were both waiting to inherit.
That is the first thing a Texas executor facing a will contest needs to understand: the estate defends the will.
The Complication: When the Executor Is Also the Accused
Robert's situation had a complication that not every executor faces, but that is common enough to require its own answer: he was not just the executor defending the will. He was also the named influencer — the person Angela accused of having manipulated their father's decisions.
This created a conflict that Texas probate attorneys see regularly. The estate's attorney defends the will on behalf of the estate. But if the executor is the person accused of the misconduct that allegedly rendered the will invalid, the same attorney cannot simultaneously represent the executor personally — because the estate's interest (proving the will is valid) might diverge from the executor's personal interest (protecting themselves from liability) if the case develops in certain ways. Two separate legal representations are often necessary: one for the estate's defense of the will, and one for the executor's personal defense against any surcharge or misconduct claim.
The estate covers the attorney fees for defending the will. The executor typically covers, from their own funds, the attorney fees for any representation that is solely for their personal protection — unless the court later determines the personal defense was intertwined with the defense of the estate's interests, in which case reimbursement from the estate may be appropriate.
This is nuanced territory. Getting the representation structure right at the beginning — before depositions are taken and positions are locked in — is one of the most important early decisions an executor in this situation makes.
The Clock: Texas's Two-Year Will Contest Deadline
Angela's notice of intent arrived sixty-three days after Robert received letters testamentary. That timing was not accidental — her attorney knew exactly where they stood on the statutory clock.
Under Tex. Estates Code § 256.204, a person has two years after a will is admitted to probate to file a formal will contest. The two-year period begins when the will is admitted — typically when the court enters the order of probate after letters testamentary are issued. Angela had filed her notice of intent well inside that window. She had approximately twenty-two months remaining before the deadline expired and her contest right was lost.
For executors, understanding the deadline matters in two directions. First, it sets the outer boundary of the uncertainty period: for two years after probate, the estate technically cannot achieve complete finality, because a valid contest could unwind the administration that has already occurred. Executors managing estates with significant assets — particularly real estate that beneficiaries might want to sell — need to understand that complete title certainty may not be achievable until that window closes or a formal release is obtained. Second, the deadline creates tactical pressure that experienced will-contest attorneys use deliberately. A notice of intent filed early in the two-year window forces the executor to respond under time pressure, before the estate is distributed and while the executor is still in the position of managing assets the challenger might want frozen.
Robert's estate planning attorney, reviewing the situation, noted that William had met with his estate planning attorney three times between 2018 and the date he signed the 2020 will — documented meetings that produced clear notes about William's intentions, his understanding of his family situation, and his reasons for the specific distribution he chose. Those notes became the foundation of the estate's defense.
How Texas Courts Evaluate a Will Contest
Angela's challenge rested on two theories. Both have specific legal requirements in Texas, and both placed the burden of proof on her — not on Robert or the estate.
Testamentary capacity under Texas law requires that at the time of signing, the testator understood: (1) the nature of the act of making a will; (2) the general nature and extent of their property; (3) the natural objects of their bounty (that is, who their family members were and what their relationships were); and (4) the relationship of these elements to form an orderly plan of disposition. Tex. Est. Code § 251.001. A person can have a significant medical condition — including early neurological decline — and still have testamentary capacity if they had a lucid interval at the time of signing. Texas courts have repeatedly held that the capacity needed to make a will is different from, and less demanding than, the capacity required for other legal acts. The signed, witnessed, and notarized will carries a legal presumption of validity. Angela had to overcome that presumption with evidence.
The capacity challenge in William's case was undermined by the contemporaneous attorney notes. William had expressed, in three documented conversations in the two years before the will was signed, a clear and consistent intention: equal distribution between his two children, with specific bequests to the institutions he cared about. The estate's attorney retained a neurologist who reviewed William's medical records and offered an opinion that William's diagnosed condition had not, by early 2020, reached a stage that would have impaired the specific cognitive functions the testamentary capacity standard measures. Angela's expert disagreed. That dispute would have been decided at trial — but the case settled before reaching one.
Undue influence requires proving that the influencer's effect was so dominant that the will reflects the influencer's wishes, not the testator's. The Texas Supreme Court's framework from Rothermel v. Duncan, 369 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. 1963), evaluates: (1) the susceptibility of the testator; (2) the opportunity of the alleged influencer; (3) the disposition of the alleged influencer to exercise undue influence; and (4) the unnatural result of the disposition. The key word is "unnatural." William's equal split between his two children, with bequests to his church and his veterans group, was the most natural result imaginable. Robert being nearby and helpful — driving to appointments, managing finances — is what devoted children in McKinney do for aging parents. Proximity and assistance are not, by themselves, evidence of undue influence. The question is whether Robert substituted his will for William's. Angela's attorneys, in deposition, could not point to a single documented instance in which Robert had directed William's estate planning decisions, overridden a preference William had expressed, or discouraged William from seeing Angela or independent advisors.
The Removal Petition as a Tactical Move
Questions about probate litigation? A WG Law attorney can walk you through your options.
Experienced will-contest attorneys in Texas often file two things simultaneously: the will contest and a petition to remove the executor. Understanding why illuminates both the tactic and the defense.
A will contest takes time — months of discovery, potential expert witnesses, and eventually a trial if the parties do not settle. During that time, the contested will's validity is uncertain. The executor continues to administer the estate unless something stops them. If the executor is also the accused influencer, the challenger has an argument that this person — who allegedly manipulated the decedent — should not be trusted to control the assets while the challenge is pending.
Angela's attorneys filed a concurrent petition to remove Robert under Tex. Estates Code §§ 361.051–361.052 (grounds for removal of personal representatives) and § 404.003 (removal of independent executors). The removal grounds in Texas are specific: misappropriation of estate property, gross misconduct, incapacity, failure to file required inventories or accountings, or — critically — serving the interests of a party adverse to the estate's beneficiaries. Angela's theory was that Robert's alleged undue influence made him adverse to her interests as a beneficiary.
Robert's response to the removal petition was documentation. He had maintained organized records of every estate-administration decision: bank account statements, notices sent, payments made, the timeline of his inventory filing, the creditor notice publication record. He had kept every email to and from Angela about estate matters. He had not made distributions to himself beyond the proper executor's fee, and he had not sold estate property or moved assets without proper authorization. A well-documented administration is the most powerful defense against a removal petition, because the removal grounds are almost entirely conduct-based. If the conduct was proper and provable, the petition fails.
When to Settle — and What Settling Means
Many Texas will contests settle before trial. Robert's case was no exception.
Fourteen months after Angela filed her contest, the parties entered mediation. The estate's attorney and Robert's personal attorney both participated. At the conclusion of mediation, the parties agreed to a settlement: Angela received a lump sum from the estate that was larger than her equal share under the will, funded partly by a reduction in Robert's share. The will contest was dismissed with prejudice. The removal petition was dismissed. Robert completed the administration, the house sold, and the estate closed in the eighteenth month after William's death.
The settlement was not an admission that anything in Angela's contest was meritorious. It was a recognition that prolonged litigation — expert witness fees, potential trial, the cost of uncertainty — might consume more value than the settlement itself. The executor has authority to enter into settlements that are in the estate's best interest, subject to court approval when required. In this case, the settlement avoided a trial that would have cost more in attorney fees than the settlement amount, and allowed the estate to close in a reasonable time.
What the executor needs to understand: settling a will contest is a legitimate, estate-protecting outcome. It is not a concession that the will was invalid or that the executor did something wrong. And the estate's attorney — not the executor's personal attorney — is the one who negotiates and recommends settlement on the estate's behalf.
What the Estate Pays, and What You Pay Personally
The cost structure of a defended will contest matters enormously to executors who suddenly find themselves in litigation they did not anticipate.
The estate pays: attorney fees for defending the validity of the will; expert witness fees retained to support the estate's defense; court costs and filing fees incurred in the defense; costs of document production and discovery responses made on behalf of the estate. These are legitimate administration expenses under the Estates Code, properly charged against estate assets before distribution.
The executor may pay personally: attorney fees for any representation that is solely for the executor's personal defense on claims separate from the will's validity — for example, a personal surcharge claim alleging that the executor misused estate funds for personal benefit. If the court later determines the personal defense was integral to and inseparable from the estate's defense, it may authorize reimbursement, but this is determined on a case-by-case basis after the litigation concludes.
This structure means that an executor who acted in complete good faith — who made every decision with proper documentation, distributed nothing prematurely, and maintained clean records — has a significant advantage: their personal exposure is limited, because the conduct that generates the most significant personal liability (surcharge for misappropriation) is exactly the conduct they did not engage in. The estate's funds defend the will; their clean record defends them personally.
When You Need Two Attorneys (and Why That's Normal)
The practical reality for executors like Robert is that two concurrent representations — one for the estate, one for themselves — are not unusual and are sometimes essential. Texas probate courts understand this structure. An executor who is accused of undue influence cannot be represented by the same attorney for both roles without creating a potential conflict. Getting proper representation at the beginning, rather than discovering the conflict after positions have been taken, protects both the executor and the estate's resources from the cost of untangling a flawed representation structure mid-litigation.
WG Law's Executor Defense Practice
At WG Law, Therese Gutierrez and Stephan D. Hwang defend personal representatives facing will contests, removal petitions, accounting demands, and surcharge claims across Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties.
Therese holds an LL.M. from Texas A&M University School of Law and brings deep experience in contested probate matters throughout North Texas. Stephan is admitted to the U.S. District Courts for the Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas and has handled real estate litigation, commercial disputes, and contested probate proceedings since 2007. Together, they represent the firm's probate litigation practice — the same team that handles both sides of these disputes, which means they understand exactly what the challenger's attorneys are trying to accomplish and how to counter it.
If you have received a will contest notice, a removal petition, or an accounting demand, the time to engage counsel is before you respond — not after. Early, organized representation is what separates a manageable dispute from an expensive, prolonged one.
Call 214-250-4407 or request a consultation with WG Law's probate litigation team. We serve McKinney, Southlake, Frisco, Plano, Allen, and the greater DFW metroplex.
For further reading, see our overview of executor and administrator defense in Texas, the broader WG Law probate litigation practice, and our guides on grounds for removing an executor in Texas, testamentary capacity versus undue influence in a Texas will contest, and Texas no-contest clauses and the § 254.005 safe harbor.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Texas probate and estate litigation are highly fact-specific; consult a licensed Texas attorney before making decisions about an estate proceeding.