The phone rings. The caller refuses to identify themselves. They claim your parents’ will was forged and promise they have proof. Most people would dismiss such a call as a cruel prank. But what happens when those anonymous allegations turn out to be true, and the proof comes in the form of boxes filled with practice signatures? What happens if these events arise years after the probate is settled–long after the two year statute of limitations?
This scenario might sound like a fictitious lawschool hypotentical, but it it played out in the Galveston County probate court. The case raises questions about whether documents showing repeated attempts to replicate a signature can be used to prove a will was forged many years prior or was it too late to do so despite the late discovery of this evidence? The Court of Appeals in Waldrop v. Miller, No. 01-24-00146-CV (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] (Dec. 23, 2025), provides an opportunity consider these questions.
Facts & Procedural History
Leon died, leaving seven children and his wife, Phyllis. Two years after Leon’s death, one of his sons applied for letters of administration, stating Leon died intestate.
One year later, Phyllis objected and produced a will allegedly signed by Leon and two witnesses. The will left Phyllis all of Leon’s possessions except $100 for each child. Leon’s son initially contested the will as forged but later withdrew his contest. The trial court appointed Phyllis as independent administratrix.
In 2020, Tammy, one of Leon’s daughters, filed her own will contest alleging forgery. She claimed her case was not time-barred because she did not discover the forgery until 2020.
Miller testified that in 2019, she began receiving anonymous phone calls stating the will was forged. The caller eventually revealed herself as Eunice, Phyllis’s cousin. In 2020, Lundy and Sonja (Phyllis’s sister) provided Miller with over thirty documents showing what appeared to be attempts to practice Leon’s signature using the same language from the will.
Roberson testified that Phyllis had given her the box of documents and instructed her to burn them. When Roberson opened the box, she found multiple versions of Leon’s signature on single pages and multiple versions of Leon’s will. Roberson gave the documents to her mother, who later gave them to Lundy. Roberson and Lundy then gave them to Miller. Both Roberson’s mother and Lundy died before the trial.
The trial court admitted the box of documents as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 over Phyllis’s objections. An expert document examiner testified that it was highly probable the will did not contain Leon’s genuine signature. Phyllis denied giving Roberson the box and stated the signature was authentic. Based on this evidence, the probate court ruled the will was a forgery and declared it void. Phyllis appealed.
Will Contests and Time Limits Under the Texas Estates Code
The Texas Estates Code provides the statutory framework for challenging the validity of a will. The timing rules are strict and can be problematic in some cases.
Section 256.201 establishes that a will contest has to be filed within two years after the will is admitted to probate. This time limit is based on the public policy favoring the finality of probate proceedings.
The two-year period begins running when the will is formally admitted to probate through a court order. The Legislature chose this starting point because admission to probate provides public notice that the will has been accepted as valid. Potential contestants are expected to monitor probate proceedings if they have an interest in an estate. County probate records are often public and accessible.
However, the Texas courts have occasionally recognized that strict adherence to time limits can produce unjust results in certain situations. When a will proponent obtains admission through fraud or forgery, the wrongdoing itself may prevent interested parties from discovering grounds to contest.
Proving a Statute of Limitations Defense
The statute of limitations operates as an affirmative defense under Texas law. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 94 requires defendants to specifically plead affirmative defenses in their answers.
Pleading the defense alone does not establish it. The defendant bears the burden to prove when the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued. In discovery rule cases, this means proving when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the facts giving rise to their claim.
The defendant must also show that the plaintiff failed to file suit within the applicable limitations period. For will contests alleging forgery under Section 256.204, this would mean showing that the plaintiff discovered the forgery and failed to file suit within a reasonable time.
Beyond pleading and proving their defense, defendants must secure findings supporting it. This typically happens through a trial court ruling on a summary judgment motion, findings of fact after a bench trial, or jury findings. Without such findings, appellate courts have nothing to review. Trial courts need the opportunity to rule on defenses before appellate courts can review them.
Authentication of Documentary Evidence in Texas Courts
Before a trial court may admit documentary evidence, the proponent must authenticate it. Texas Rule of Evidence 901 establishes the standard: the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
This requirement serves several purposes. It ensures reliability by requiring proof that documents are what they purport to be. It prevents fraud by making it harder to introduce fabricated or altered documents. It gives opposing parties notice of what evidence will be used against them and an opportunity to challenge authenticity.
The authentication standard is not high. The proponent needs only to produce sufficient evidence that a reasonable fact finder could determine the evidence is authentic. This does not require conclusive proof. It requires enough evidence to support a reasonable inference of authenticity.
Evidence may be authenticated in various ways. Direct testimony from a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it claims to be constitutes one common method. A witness who created a document, received it, or handled it can testify to its authenticity based on personal knowledge.
Evidence may also be authenticated through appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics. This can include both direct and circumstantial evidence. For example, a letter might be authenticated by testimony about its appearance, the handwriting it contains, or references to facts known only to the purported author.
The ultimate question of whether evidence is authentic remains one for the fact finder. The probate court’s role in authentication is limited to determining whether enough evidence exists to support a finding of authenticity. If sufficient evidence exists, the court admits the evidence and allows the fact finder to decide how much weight to give it.
How Did the Chain of Custody Affect the Authentication of the Practice Signature Documents?
The documents Miller sought to introduce as Exhibit 2 passed through multiple hands before trial. Phyllis gave them to Roberson, who gave them to Stanton. Stanton gave them to Lundy, who ultimately gave them to Miller in Roberson’s presence. Two people in this chain, Stanton and Lundy, died before the trial.
Phyllis objected to Exhibit 2’s admission on authentication grounds. She argued that Roberson never confirmed whether the revised exhibit (with certain pages removed) matched what she received from Phyllis. Phyllis also contended that Roberson never identified whether the documents in Exhibit 2 were the same ones she gave to Miller.
The First Court examined Roberson’s testimony. Roberson testified multiple times that Phyllis gave her the box of documents. She reviewed its contents before passing it to her mother. Based on that review, she could identify which documents were originally in the box.
During the authentication process, Roberson removed several documents. She testified these were not in the box when Phyllis gave it to her because Lundy wrote those letters while the box was in Lundy’s possession. After removing them, Roberson confirmed that all remaining documents were in the box when Phyllis handed it to her.
The court found this testimony sufficient to authenticate Exhibit 2. Roberson had personal knowledge of the box’s contents when she received it from Phyllis. She could identify which documents were original and which had been added later. The court rejected the argument that authentication failed because Roberson was not asked specific questions about the revised exhibit. The testimony established what the documents were and where they came from. The probate court did not abuse its discretion in finding that this evidence could support a determination that Exhibit 2 was what Roberson claimed it to be.
The Takeaway
This case shows how forgery allegations can survive even when discovered years after a will’s execution through unusual circumstances like anonymous phone calls and boxes of practice signatures. The case shows the difficult procedural technicalities that can sometimes prevent examination of credible forgery evidence. When a party claims their spouse forged a will, they must be prepared to prove it through expert testimony and documentary evidence, but they must also preserve their defenses properly at trial. For those administering estates or defending wills against contests, the lesson is clear: affirmative defenses like statute of limitations require more than a mention in the answer. They demand proof, argument, and a ruling from the trial court.
Our Dallas Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with probate litigation and cases involving the fraudulent wills. Probate is what we do. 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 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.
