How a Genealogist’s Testimony and Legal Doctrine Decided a Four-Decade-Old Inheritance Battle
A genealogist’s expert testimony that a quick divorce was legally impossible in 1963, combined with Texas’s durable heirship laws, led a court to void a decades-old marriage and award a valuable mineral estate to the deceased’s blood relatives.
In the world of law, some cases are decided by complex statutes or groundbreaking precedent. Others are decided by the painstaking work of experts who can resurrect the past. The Texas Court of Appeals case, Estate of Trickett, Case No. 13-19-00154-CV, 2020 WL 6164324 (Tex. App. Oct. 22, 2020) is a profound example of the latter. It is an heirship matter that spans six decades, two countries, and a web of family drama, all centering on a simple but elusive question: did a divorce ever actually happen? The answer would determine the rightful owners of a valuable mineral estate, and the journey to that answer provides a lesson in how historical research, procedural rules, and legal presumptions collide in a court of law.
The Stakes: A Royal Inheritance in Trust
The story begins with the death of Clara May Brooks Trickett in 1951. Her will bequeathed her daughter, Claralyn Brooks Trickett, several valuable mineral royalty interests in the oil-and-gas-rich lands of Bexar and La Salle Counties, Texas. However, these interests were placed in a trust that would not terminate until Claralyn turned forty years old.
In December 1963, the executor of Clara’s estate, P.H. Swearingen (Claralyn’s cousin), filed an affidavit in the Bexar County deed records. It declared that Claralyn, now forty, had received the assets and that title was vested in “Mrs. Claralyn T. Bowerman.” This change of name was crucial. Months earlier, in August 1963, Claralyn had traveled to Tijuana, Mexico, and married Robert Bowerman. Subsequent deeds filed in 1964 referred to her as “Claralyn T. Bowerman” and “Claralyn Brooks Trickett Bowerman, wife of Robert Bowerman.”
For the next nine years, Robert and Claralyn lived as husband and wife in California, buying and selling property together. They never lived in Texas. Tragedy struck when Claralyn became seriously ill and passed away on December 24, 1972. Her Texas relatives paid for her funeral and burial in San Antonio, and even covered Robert’s travel expenses. She was buried under a headstone that read “Claralyn Trickett Bowerman,” and her death certificate listed Robert as her spouse. To all outward appearances, it was the closing chapter of a marriage.
But the legal story was just beginning. The mineral rights, often forgotten, continued to generate royalties. The question of who truly owned them after Claralyn’s death—her blood relatives or her purported husband’s family—lay dormant for over 36 years.
The Cloud on the Title: A New Claim Emerges
The dormant conflict ignited between 2009 and 2011. Robert Bowerman, during his lifetime, executed documents conveying title to these same royalty interests to his children from his first marriage: Richard Howard Bowerman, Steven Robert Bowerman, and Esther Michele Daugherty (the Appellants). After Robert’s death in January 2010, the Appellants filed several affidavits and deeds in Bexar and La Salle Counties, formally staking their claim to the property through their father.
This action “clouded the title,” meaning there were now competing claims of ownership on the official record, making it impossible to clearly buy, sell, or lease the mineral interests. In response, Claralyn’s blood relatives, her maternal second cousins Marcelle Winifred Swearingen and Nancy Lee Woodmansee (the Appellees), filed a lawsuit in 2013 to “quiet title”—a legal action to remove the invalid claims and establish themselves as the sole owners.
At the request of the Appellants, this suit was paused, or abated, until a probate court could officially declare who Claralyn’s legal heirs were. This strategic move shifted the battle from a property dispute to a probate proceeding, setting the stage for a definitive showdown over the validity of the 1963 marriage.
The Core Issue: The Alleged Divorce
The Appellees’ heirship claim was straightforward: they were Claralyn’s sole surviving blood relatives and thus her rightful heirs under Texas law of intestate succession. The Appellants’ claim was equally straightforward but rested on a critical prerequisite: Robert Bowerman must have been Claralyn’s lawful husband at the time of her death.
The Appellees attacked this foundation directly. They argued the Mexican marriage was void from the beginning because Robert had never legally divorced his first wife, Jane Bowerman, whom he had married in 1946. Robert and Jane had lived in San Mateo County, California, and had two children together. While they had announced plans to divorce in the spring of 1963 and Robert had moved out, the Appellees contended that no formal divorce was ever granted.
The evidence presented was a tale of two narratives:
• The Appellants’ Narrative: They presented the official Mexican marriage certificate, which stated that the officiant had been presented with divorce decrees from both parties’ previous marriages. They also offered a compelling affidavit from Jane Bowerman, executed in 2011, which stated: “I clearly remember signing the documents so that we could be divorced, and I clearly remember Robert Bowerman later giving me a copy of the final papers that said we were divorced.” This was powerful, firsthand evidence of a divorce.
• The Appellees’ Narrative: They presented the testimony of an expert genealogist, Dee Dee King. Her testimony was devastating to the Appellants’ case. King testified that after an exhaustive search, no record of a divorce between Robert and Jane Bowerman could be found in any county in California or, crucially, in Nevada (a known destination for “quickie divorces” at the time). Furthermore, and most critically, King provided expert context: she testified that under California law in 1963, it was impossible to obtain a legal divorce in less than twelve months due to mandatory waiting periods. Robert had left Jane in the spring of 1963 and married Claralyn in Tijuana that August—a span of only a few months. This testimony transformed the absence of a record from a mere curiosity into a legally significant fact.
The jury was faced with a choice: believe the English translation of the Spanish language document and the affidavit of a since-deceased woman or believe the expert testimony about the absence of records and the legal impossibility of a swift divorce. They unanimously found that the marriage was void.
The Legal Gauntlet: Eleven Issues on Appeal
Unsatisfied with the verdict, the Appellants raised eleven distinct issues on appeal. The Court of Appeals’ methodical rejection of each provides valuable insights into probate and procedural law.
1. Jurisdiction to Declare a Marriage Void
The Appellants argued that only a court under the Texas Family Code could declare a marriage void, and that such a court had no authority here because the marriage was in Mexico and neither party was a Texas domiciliary. The appellate court flatly rejected this. This was not a standalone divorce case; it was a “matter related to the probate proceeding.” The probate court’s broad jurisdiction to determine heirs necessarily included the power to determine the validity of a marriage that was the sole basis for a claim of heirship.
2. The Statute of Limitations
This was a pivotal issue. The Appellants argued that waiting over 40 years to file an heirship claim was barred by the four-year residual statute of limitations. The court’s analysis turned on a crucial distinction. Citing the Estate of Ripley precedent from the San Antonio Court of Appeals, the court held that no limitations period applies to heirship proceedings unless there has been a prior administration of the estate or a prior conveyance of the property to a third party. Here, there had been no administration of Claralyn’s estate, and the conveyances from Robert to his children were the very acts being challenged as invalid. Therefore, the Appellees’ claim was timely, no matter how much time had passed.
3. Waiver and the Jury Charge
The Appellants claimed the Appellees waived their heirship claim by not submitting a specific jury question on it. The court disagreed. The genealogist’s testimony had been uncontroverted: if the marriage was void, the Appellees were the heirs; if it was valid, the Appellants were the heirs. The heirship itself was a legal consequence of the jury’s verdict on the marriage, not a separate factual question. The evidence had “conclusively established” the outcome, so no separate question was needed.
4. The Presumption of Validity
A key legal doctrine in the Appellants’ favor was the presumption that the most recent marriage is valid. They argued the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on this presumption. The Court of Appeals delivered an important legal lesson: presumptions are not for juries. They are rules for judges to determine which party has the burden of production. The jury’s job is to weigh facts, not presumptions. The trial court correctly placed the burden on the Appellees to overcome the presumption, which they did through their evidence, but it did not need to—and should not—instruct the jury on the presumption itself.
5. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The court conducted a detailed review of the evidence under legal and factual sufficiency standards. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court found that the genealogist’s testimony about the absence of records and the legal time bar provided more than a “scintilla” of evidence for the jury to find no divorce occurred. The jury was free to discount Jane’s affidavit as a misrecollection of an informal separation that was never finalized. The verdict was not “so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be unjust.”
6. Laches and Other Defenses
The court also dismissed the equitable defense of laches. Laches, which requires an unreasonable delay and detrimental reliance, is generally not available against a claim to enforce a statutory right, such as a probate code provision for determining heirs. The Appellees were not sleeping on their rights; they were enforcing them in response to the Appellants’ recent actions.
The Resurgence of the Past
The Estate of Trickett case is more than a familial dispute over money; it demonstrates the power of specialized knowledge and the resilience of legal rights. It highlights several critical takeaways:
• The Critical Role of Expert Testimony: The genealogist, Dee Dee King, was the linchpin of the case. She did not just say “I couldn’t find it”; she explained why she couldn’t find it, providing the historical and legal context that made the absence of evidence itself a powerful form of evidence. Her expertise translated a decades-old mystery into a persuasive legal argument.
• The Durability of Heirship Claims: The ruling reinforces that in Texas, the right to claim an inheritance through an heirship proceeding can be extraordinarily durable. Without a prior administration or conveyance, there is no clock ticking against rightful heirs, allowing claims to be brought forward when needed, even generations later.
• Procedure Over Passion: The Appellants’ emotional and factual arguments—a loving marriage, a widow’s affidavit, a foreign marriage certificate—were ultimately overcome by a procedural application of rules: rules of evidence, rules of jurisdiction, rules of jury charges, and rules of limitations.
In the end, the court affirmed that Claralyn Trickett’s blood relatives were her legal heirs. The ghost of Robert and Jane Bowerman’s divorce, which may have felt real to those involved, never attained legal substance. Because of that, a marriage performed in Mexico in 1963 was declared void, and a fortune in mineral rights was restored to its rightful owners, all because a genealogist knew exactly where and how to look for a divorce that never was.
Get in touch with forensic genealogists and certified legal translators at All Language Alliance, Inc. for assistance with genealogical research at the intersections of genealogy, intestacy laws and historical evidence, and to obtain certified translation of foreign language evidentiary documents from any foreign language to English for contested heirship and probate cases.
#alllanguagealliance #forensicgenealogist #genealogicalresearchservices #divorcecertificate #foreignmarriagecertificate #divorcecertificatetranslation #certifiedtranslation #certifieddocumenttranslation #probategenealogist #legalgenealogist #probatetranslationservices
Up Next: German Heirs and the Ship Manifest in a South Dakota Heirship Dispute