### NUM BER 13-09- 0006 5-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG

IN THE ESTA TE OF ROB ERT O F LOR ES MA RQU EZ , D ECE A SED

On a p p ea l f ro m th e Pr o b at e C o u rt of H ida lgo C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef o re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es R o d rig u ez a n d G ar za

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Laur a Perez , chal len g es the pr obate cour t’ s d eni al of her appl ic ati on to pr obate a pur por

ted h olo g ra phi c w il l ex ecut ed by her dec eased hus band, Rob erto F lor es Ma rq uez

. See T EX

. P ROB

. C OD E A NN

. § 84 ( c ) ( Ve r no n Su pp

. 20 08 )

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND Ma rquez , a re si dent of Mex ic o C it y , di ed i n an auto acc ide nt on F ebr uar y 7, 1990. Ac co rd in g to Pe re z, Ma rqu e z owne d re a l a n d p e rso n a l p ro p e rt y in b o th Me xico a n d Hid a lgo Cou nty , Tex as, w orth ov er one mil li on dol lar s in total

. Per ez cl aims that she dis cov er ed a document sh e bel iev ed to be M ar q uez ’s handw ri tten w il l in 2006 “ w hil e c lea nin g up b ox es in her apar tment in M ex ic o.” On Nov ember 1, 2006, Per ez f il ed an “A ppl ic ati on to Pr obate2

a H olo g ra phi c W il l and f or Issuan ce of Lette rs of

Admini str ati on” w it h the Hidal g o C ounty pr obate cour

t purs uant to s ect ion s 7 3( a) and 81( a) of the Tex as Pr obate Cod e. See i d. § 73(a ) ( Verno n 20 03), § 8 1(a) (Vernon Supp . 200 8). The pur por

ted w il l w as act ual ly

a l e tter from M ar q uez to Per ez date d Oc tober 18, 1989. Ac cor din g to Per ez , M ar q uez w ro te t h e l e tter b ecaus e he w as unsur e tha t he had ef f ectively ex presse d his testa me nta ry wishes in a previ ously-ex ecut ed f orma l w ritten wi ll,

w hich w as sub sequen tly lost or destroyed. T he let ter, as tran slated f rom Sp anish to English by a license d cou rt interprete r, states in its en tirety as f ollows: Hi Laura As I once prom ised y ou, I just f inished my w ill in McAllen. T he o n ly thi ng I hope is t hat t hese gr ing os hav e c or re ctl y

under sto od w hat I l eft y ou, si nce they

[s ic ] ar e s om e l o ts i n m y name i n M ex ic o. This w ay y ou ar e not goi ng to hav e any

pr obl ems w it h my

famil y

. That’s w hat I hope. I l ov e y ou hija

. Rob er to (E mphases i n or ig ina l. ) At a hear ing on M ar ch 21, 2 007, the p ro bate cour t hea rd tes ti mony

from Pe re z and t wo o t h e r wi t n e s s e s id e n t if yin g t h e h a n d wri t in g o n t h e le t t e r a s t h a t o f Ma rq u e z. Nev erthel ess , t he c our

t den ied Per ez ’s appl ic ati on by w ri tten or der

on J anuary 1 2 , 200 9. This appeal foll ow ed. II. D I S CUS S I ON On ap peal , Pe re z co ntends that the pr obate cour t err ed by deny ing her app li cat ion be c a u s e s h e me t t h e r e q u i r e me n t s fo r p r o b a t i n g a h o l o g r a p h i c w i l l

. S e c t i o n 8 4 ( c ) o f the T exas Probat e Code p rov ides: “If not self -proved as provi ded in this Code, a w ill w holly in the han dwr iting of

the te stato r may be proved b y t wo w itnesse s to his han dwr iting, w hich evidence m ay be b y

sw orn t e s t im o n y o r af f idavit taken in op en co urt . . . .” Id. § 84 (c). Per ez does not dis pute that the O cto ber 18, 1989 l etter

wa s n o t s elf- pr ov ing under the pr obate code. Ac cor din g ly , she pr oduce d the tes ti mony of tw o w it ness es to pr ov e tha t t he3

h a n d wri t in g o n t h e le t t e r b e lo n ge d t o Ma rq u e z. Gener all y , t he uncon tr o v erted o pin ion tes ti mony of tw o w it ness es is su ff ic ien t t o ide nti fy the handw ri ti ng i n a w il l as that of the te sta tor

. In r e M ateer ’ s E sta te , 296 S. W . 907 , 908- 909 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–Tex a rka n a 1 9 2 7 , w ri t r ef’d)

. Her e, ho w ev er , t he r ecor d r eflect s that the p ro bate cour

t r ule d as it did not bec ause it w as uncon v inc ed th at t he hand w ri ti ng on th e l etter

bel ong ed to M ar q uez , but r ather because it concl uded t hat t he l etter i tse lf does not c onst it ute a w il l. W e ag re e w it h tha t det er minat ion

. An i nst ru ment i s n ot a w il l unl ess it is ex ecut ed w it h tes tamentar y i ntent

. Hinson v. Hi nson , 154 Tex

. 561, 564, 280 S.W .2d 731, 735 ( 1955) ; In re Est ate o f St eed , 152 S.W .3d 797, 812 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2004, pet. deni ed) ; Ayal a v . M ar ti nez , 883 S.W .2d 2 70, 2 72 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1994, w ri t denied)

. The suffici ency of the int ent does not de pend on th e make r’ s r eal iz ati on th at he or sh e is maki ng a w il l, or on t he mak er ’s des ig nati on of the i nst ru ment as a w il l, but on his or her i ntent ion to cr eate a r ev ocabl e di spos it ion of the pr ope rt y t o t ake eff ect after the maker ’s deat h. Hi nson , 154 Tex . at 564, 208 S.W .3d a t 733; Steed , 152 S.W .3d at 812 . Moreover, [a]n ess enti al to t he te sta mentar y ch ar act er

of a l etter

is that the w ri ter

i ntend by th a t very

i nst ru m ent t o m a k e a p o s t h u m o u s d is p o s it io n o f h is p ro p e rt y. W hen, ther efore, the lan g uag e used cl ear ly ind ic ates that the w ri ter does not int end t he l etter

i n q uest ion to hav e tha t effect, .

. . t he c our ts hol d the l etter not to be te stam ent aryin characte r. In r e Es tate of K

ir by , 516 S.W .2d 2 8 4 , 2 8 7 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–W aco 1974, w ri t r ef’d n. r. e.) (citing 40 A. L.R. 2d 698 , at *7) (em pha sis adde d). It is appar ent that Mar q uez did not w ri te the Octobe r 18, 1989 l etter w it h the r eq uis it e int ent. In the let ter , Ma rq uez re ferenc es the fact that he had “j ust fini shed” a for mal w ri tten

w il l in w hic h he left s ome proper ty to Per ez

. W hil e the f or mal w ri tten w il l w as nev er l ocat ed, the r eferenc e to it in the October 18, 1989 lett er

indi cat es that Ma rq uez did not i ntend for

“ that ver y i nst ru m ent ”—i.e., th e l e t ter—to ef f ectu ate a dispositio n of his prope rty

af ter his death. See i

d. Instead, Mar q uez clear ly intended f or

hi s p re v iou sl y -e x ecut ed formal w ri tten4

w ill to serve that pu rpose . Th e Octo ber 18 , 198 9 lette r merely expressed Marquez’s

conce rn that his testam ent aryw ishes, a s set fo rth in his f orma l w ill, w ould not be “correctly under sto od” ; i t di d not pur por t t o pr ov ide for a ny

addi ti o n a l dis posi ti on of pr oper ty upon Ma rq uez ’s deat h. For the foreg oin g r eason s, w e c oncl ude t hat M ar q uez did not i ntend the O cto ber 18, 198 9 lette r to be his w ill. Beca use the l ette r w as no t executed w ith test am ent aryinten t, it did not cons ti tute a w il l. See H ins on , 154 T ex . at 564, 280 S.W .2d a t 735

. Acc or din g ly , t he prob ate court did no t err by denying Perez’s applicatio n to pro bat e the letter. Perez’s sole is sue is ov er ru led

. III

. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the pr obate cour t.

DO RI C ON TRER AS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 22nd day

of Oct ober , 200 9.