certaintyto identify t and shall statethat the appellantdesiresto removethe sameto the court of appeals r revisionand correction.
( Ver non1986)Tex. Tex.CivP ra c.& R e m.C o d eA n n.$ 51.013 ; R. App.P.45;Hutch i ns ,
Id.;S Antonio1956,writ refd 292S.W.2d818(Tex.Civ.App,--San
n.r.e.).
ppellantchallengesthe probateof decedent's will by writ of error.He is an
person"inthe decedent's estate. SeeEstates He is entitledto Code,$22.018.
the probateof the will by writ of error. Hutchins,Id.
determininga "no evidence"question,an appellatecourt considersonly that
and reasonableinferencestherefromthat tend to supportthe findings of the trier
of facts, isregardingall contraryevidenceand inferences.Best v. Rlran Auto Group.
Inc.,78 S .W.2 d Kjng 6 7 0 ,6 1 1 (T e x.1990) , S.W ,2d845,846( Tex.1985) . ; v. Bauer688 a scintilla of evidencesupportsthe findings,they must be upheld.Garciav.
1 . W . 28 f P a . , 7 5S , 5 8( T e x . 1 9 8 8 ) . d5 78
I n d iding whether the petitioner for a writ of error has met the requirementthat
grror t' appalentfrom the face of the record,"the court "may considerall of the papers
on file i the appeal,includingthe statementof lacts."DSC Fin. Corp. v. Moffit' 815
s.w.2d51 (T'ex.1991).
Ad attackby writ of erroron ajudgmentprobatinga will mustcomplywith the
flrrst,thi andfourthrequirements there setout in Brown,627S.W.2dat392.However,
is no irementthatpetitionerbe a parlyto the suit;all thatis requiredis thatthe
petitio pafty"in theestate. bean "interested 292S.W.2dat 819.Appellant Specia,
meetsal of the requirementsnecessaryto appealby writ of error'
T Code requiresthat certainelementsbe provedto the satisfactionof the court
priorto he a will to probateand the issuanceof letterstestamentaryor of
admini ration. It is the duty of the court in a proceedingto probatea will to determine
that the ill bt;ine offered for probatemeetsthe statutoryrequisitesbefore admitting it to
542S.W.2d685,688(Tex.App.--Texarkana1976), of Rosborough, probate.In re Estate
writ n.r.e).
s the Court knows, a testamentarywriting that is supplementaryto an earlier inst tisoalleda..codicil,'.@,84Tex.l]4,19S'w.382 (18e2).It alsoincludesa testamentary thatdirectshow propertymaynot be instrument dispo of. lfex. EstatesCode, $22.034. The documentmarked"Addendum to Original will", a "codicil". As usedin the EstatesCode,the term "will" includesa codicil. Tex. tesCodeAnn. $22.034(1). andeffect,a codicilmayaddto or In its operation modify provisionsof a will. Hunt v. Knolle,551 S.W.2d764(Tex.Civ. App.- Tyler, 1 77) no writ. A courtmaynot prohibita personfrom executinga codicilto an 'Iex. existing ill. CodeAnn. $253.001(b). Estates "materialvariance"betweenthe pleadingsand proof is fatal and rendersa
v. Gardner,836 S.W.2d739741 (Tex' App' judgme void. EnserchExploration.Inc.
-Eastl 1992), The varianceis materialif it operatedto the Respondent'ssurpriseor prejudi d hisrights.Piercev. State,113S.W.3d 431.439(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003). Llantwas prejudicedby the failure to admit the codicil as he did not receive hisbeq underit, so thejudgmentis void.
witnessesto the Codicil, Urlando Molina and Miriam Vasquez,the notary,
Reyes,and the attorney,if any, who preparedit, are and were competent
Appellant stipulatesthat the codicil was not self-provingbut would show it
was if not ible of proof. TheEstatesCoderequireseverylastwill andtestament,
wholly i the handwriting of the testator,to be attestedby two or more "credible
wit " TFIX.ESTATESCODE S 254.001.It is long settledthat "crediblewitness"is
synony witness." with "competent v. Krahl,155Tex' 210,285S'W'2d Lehmann
v. 87Tex.643,30S.W.861(1895);Kennedy r 7 9 , 7 (1955);Gamblev. Butchee, to a will is onewho witness 66 Tex.442,I S.W.308(1336).A