In In re Bice, Lois Kathlyn Bice died in 2009, survived by her husband Donald Gene Bice and three daughters. No.10-25-00307-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 9005 (Tex. App.—Waco November 20, 2025, no pet.). In 2010, all parties signed a notarized heirship affidavit stating she died intestate. Mr. Bice continued to reside on a 170-acre property, understanding himself to be the sole owner. In 2024, Mr. Bice attempted to sell the property and evict two daughters living there. Two daughters then filed a purported will from 2001 for probate. One of the daughters testified she found the will in early 2024 but waited months to tell her sisters.
At the conclusion of a jury trial on will contest, the jury answered “No” to the verdict question “[d]id the Decedent sign the Purported Will?”. Following the verdict, the applicants of the will, two of the three daughters of the Decedent, moved for a judgment notwithstanding verdict or motion for a new trial. The trial court granted the proponents’ motion. The husband of the decedent, Mr. Bice, filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court of appeals conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus and instructed the trial court to enter judgment on the jury’s verdict.
The court held:
A trial court may grant a new trial “for good cause,” subject to mandamus review for clear abuse of discretion. Trial courts have considerable discretion to grant new trials, but no court is free to simply substitute its judgment for that of the jury without a valid basis. “Disregarding a jury’s verdict is an unusually serious act that imperils a constitutional value of immense importance—the authority of a jury.” …
Upon a merits-based review of the record as a whole, there is legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the Decedent did not sign the purported will.
Before a will is admitted to probate, the will’s proponent must establish that it was properly executed and that the testator had testamentary capacity at the time of execution… Here, the Applicants had the burden to prove that the purported 2001 will was validly executed, a fact contested by Mr. Bice.
While a self-proved will may serve as prima facie evidence that the will was properly executed, when a dispute exists “a self-proved will cannot otherwise be treated differently than a will that is not self-proved, and may be contested in the same manner as a will that is not self-proved.” “A self-proved will may be contested, revoked, or amended by a codicil in the same manner as a will that is not self-proved.”… It is within the jury’s purview to weigh the credibility of testimony, including those sworn statements contained in affidavits. When evidence conflicts, the jury’s role is to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and reconcile any inconsistencies, and as a general proposition, the jury may believe all or any part of the testimony of any witness and disregard all or any part of the testimony of any witness.
The jury heard evidence that Hightower had no record of preparing the purported will, that none of the Daughters were able to locate the purported will for fourteen years, that Hightower had no photos of where the purported will was discovered, and that all the Daughters signed an heirship affidavit asserting that the Decedent died without a will. Mr. Bice also presented evidence to the jury regarding the timing and potential monetary motive of probating the purported will. Specifically, the purported will was first filed after Mr. Bice entered a sales contract for the Property valued at over a million dollars, and the Daughters would be entitled to some portion of the Property or proceeds from the sale of the Property under the purported will…
Not only is it unnecessary to have testimony from both parties, but also juries may choose to believe one witness and disbelieve another, even if the testimony is uncontradicted. A reviewing court may assume a jury disregarded some testimony in favor of their verdict, and reviewing courts cannot impose their own opinions to the contrary when a jury acted reasonably within their discretion. In the present case, there is sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury, in their sole discretion, could have concluded that the Decedent did not sign the purported will.
Id. The court granted the petition for mandamus.