vivos gifts to family members prior to these beneficiaries’ contact with Estha. Specifically, contestants point out that immediately after Estha’s transmittal of tax information to Cook, who is also a lawyer, Estha gave large cash gifts to Cook’s family up until the execution of the will. Although Ruth is not named as a party in the suit, contestants point to Ruth’s presence and gifts of a bible and wheelchair to Estha from Ruth and Cook shortly before the execution of the will and codicil as evidence of some influence. As to Schreiner, contestants allege that the visits from the college development officer beginning in 1994 constituted an undue influence over Estha who was 98 years old at the tune, lonely, isolated, and plagued with physical infirmities. See Green, 840 S.W.2d at 122 (<HOLDING>); but see Garza, 390 S.W.2d at 47
holding that despite testators death caused by the beneficiary shooting the testator a little more than a month after the third wills execution no evidence of undue influence existed at the time of the wills execution holding that evidence of a plaintiff being under the influence of marijuana and prescription drugs was highly probative of the plaintiffs ability to react perceive and reason at the time of an accident recognizing that factors such as physical and mental condition of the maker of the instrument at the time of its execution including age any weakness or infirmity are probative evidence of undue influence holding that equally consistent circumstances of influence cannot be considered as evidence of undue influence holding that rule 35 does not permit sweeping examinations of a party who has not affirmatively put into issue his own mental or physical condition by asserting his mental or physical condition either in support of or in defense of a claim and that mere relevance to the case is insufficient