The Texas Court of Appeals has granted mandamus relief to Adelide Ybarra and Leon Barba, who were contesting the validity of a will in a probate case. The court ruled that the trial court had abused its discretion by striking their pleading to admit a 2018 will and by preventing them from deposing their medical expert. This decision affects the ongoing probate proceedings concerning the estate of Juan Rosales Perez, highlighting the complexities involved in will contests.
The case, titled In Re Adelide Ybarra and Leon Barba v. the State of Texas, was filed under docket number 03-26-00497-CV. It revolves around a dispute over the validity of two wills purportedly executed by the decedent, Juan Rosales Perez. The outcome could have significant implications for the parties involved, as it addresses procedural issues that could affect the admissibility of evidence in the ongoing trial.
Background
Adelide Ybarra and Leon Barba are the relators in this case, contesting the validity of a will that they claim was executed by Juan Rosales Perez in 2018. They are opposing the application of Lawrence Perez, who seeks to admit a later will from 2022 to probate. The dispute began in 2024 when Barba initially applied for the admission of the 2018 will. In subsequent years, the case evolved with various pleadings and motions from both parties.
In October 2025, Ybarra and Barba sought to depose their medical expert, Dr. Keith Klein, to provide testimony regarding the decedent’s cognitive abilities at the time of the 2022 will's execution. However, their attempts were met with resistance from Lawrence Perez, who sought to quash the deposition and argued that the 2018 will should not be considered due to procedural deadlines imposed by the trial court.
The Ruling
The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court had abused its discretion in two key areas. First, the court struck Ybarra and Barba's pleading to admit the 2018 will based on a retroactive application of a docket-control deadline that was not in effect when they filed their pleading. The court stated, "the trial court abused its discretion by striking Relators’ pleading regarding the 2018 Will—the court struck it based on retroactively imposing a docket-control deadline."
Secondly, the court found that the trial court improperly prevented the relators from deposing Dr. Klein, stating that his testimony was discoverable and that the lack of a Texas medical license did not automatically disqualify him from providing expert testimony. The court emphasized that "the expert’s testimony is undisputedly discoverable," and the trial court's reasoning for quashing the deposition lacked legal support.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the ongoing probate proceedings. By granting mandamus relief, the Texas Court of Appeals has allowed Ybarra and Barba to proceed with their efforts to admit the 2018 will to probate and to depose their medical expert. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to proper procedural standards in probate cases and ensures that parties have the opportunity to present relevant evidence in court.
The ruling also clarifies that trial courts cannot impose deadlines retroactively, which could set a precedent for future cases involving similar procedural disputes. It reinforces the notion that all parties should have the right to present their evidence without undue restrictions imposed by the court.
What's Next
The trial court is now required to vacate its order striking the relators' pleading and to allow them to depose Dr. Klein. While the trial court's decision can still be appealed, the immediate outcome of this ruling is that the relators can continue their efforts in the probate proceedings. There are no related cases pending that would affect this ruling directly.