When a divorce doesn’t fully untangle a couple’s property, the loose ends can outlive the marriage and one of the spouses. A house that was supposed to be sold doesn’t get sold. Money that was supposed to be split sits in an account for years. Then one ex-spouse dies, and the other one starts asking whether she is now entitled to all of it.
One way to make that argument is a right of survivorship: the claim that the former spouses owned the property together in a way that sends the whole thing to whoever lives longer. But even a strong survivorship claim raises a second question. Does it give the surviving ex-spouse the right to challenge the deceased spouse’s will?
That was the issue in In re Estate of David Luke Brown, No. 01-24-00610-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 13, 2026) (mem. op.). An ex-wife claimed a right of survivorship in more than $700,000 in sale proceeds and used that claim, among others, to contest her ex-husband’s will. The court had to decide whether any of her claims gave her standing to bring the will contest.
Facts & Procedural History
David Luke Brown and Valeriya Ruzynska divorced in November 2009. Their agreed final decree ordered them to sell a jointly owned property on East Tidwell Road and split the net proceeds equally. Before the split, certain sums came off the top, including $105,000 to be paid to Brown to reimburse his separate estate for the down payment and improvements on the property.
The decree also divided land on John Ralston Road and a large collection of salvage vehicles. Ruzynska received 8510 John Ralston Road, the salvage vehicles on that land, and “an additional 130 of the salvage motor vehicles.” The decree didn’t identify those 130 vehicles in any way. Brown received 8522 John Ralston Road and the rest of the vehicles, and the court confirmed 8516 John Ralston Road as his separate property.
The Tidwell property was never sold the way the decree contemplated. In July 2019 it went in a tax foreclosure sale. After the tax claims were paid, $708,704.94 was deposited in the court’s registry, where it stayed until after Brown died in 2021.
The probate court appointed Louis Ditta as dependent administrator of Brown’s estate. Ditta asked the district court for the $105,000 reimbursement plus half of the rest. The district court paid $301,408.62 each to Ruzynska and to the estate, held back the $105,000, and sent the reimbursement claim to the probate court. Ruzynska sued over the sale and the decree, lost, and appealed. The First Court of Appeals affirmed in March 2026 (the court calls that appeal “Brown I“), and Ruzynska has asked the Texas Supreme Court to review it.
Meanwhile, Ruzynska claimed she still had salvage vehicles stored on Brown’s land. She says they were there soon after he died, then disappeared after Ditta took over. She blamed Elizabeth Green Beam-Lawson, a tenant who had been renting a house from Brown, for selling them, and she blamed Ditta for not securing them. On that basis she considered herself a creditor of the estate.
In July 2022, Beam-Lawson filed an application to probate Brown’s will. In March 2023, Ruzynska contested it, claiming the will was a forgery. Beam-Lawson moved to dismiss the contest on the ground that Ruzynska had no standing. After a hearing, the probate court gave Ruzynska two weeks to remove her vehicles from Brown’s property. The judge said she might still have a damages claim over the missing vehicles, but as to the will contest, “she’s not coming in as a creditor.” The court dismissed the contest and admitted the will to probate. Ruzynska appealed.
In the probate court and again on appeal, she also made a new argument. She said she and Brown had owned the Tidwell property as joint tenants, that the joint tenancy carried over to the sale proceeds, and that when Brown died, all of the money, including the disputed $105,000, vested in her by right of survivorship. So did that theory, or any of her other claims, give her the right to challenge the will?
How Does a Right of Survivorship Work in Texas?
To understand Ruzynska’s theory, we first have to look at what happens to jointly owned property when one owner dies. In Texas, the default answer is that the deceased owner’s share does not go to the other owner. Section 101.002 of the Texas Estates Code says that when one joint owner dies before severance, the decedent’s interest “does not survive to the remaining joint owner or owners” and instead “passes by will or intestacy from the decedent as if the decedent’s interest had been severed.” In plain terms, the deceased owner’s share goes into his estate and passes to whoever his will or the intestacy statutes name.
Owners can change that result, but only in writing. Section 111.001(a) allows two or more joint owners to “agree in writing that the interest of a joint owner who dies survives to the surviving joint owner or owners.” And Section 111.001(b) adds that this kind of agreement “may not be inferred from the mere fact that property is held in joint ownership.” Having both names on a deed isn’t enough.
Married couples have a parallel rule for community property. Under Section 112.051, spouses may agree that all or part of their community property “becomes the property of the surviving spouse on the death of a spouse.” Section 112.052(a) requires that agreement to “be in writing and signed by both spouses.”
When a valid survivorship agreement exists, the property never becomes part of the deceased owner’s estate. It belongs to the survivor at death, regardless of what the will says. That point matters for the standing question in Brown. The opinion doesn’t mention any written survivorship agreement, and the court didn’t decide whether Ruzynska’s theory had merit. But win or lose, a survivorship claim doesn’t depend on whether there is a valid will.
Who Has Standing to Contest a Will?
Not everyone who has a complaint about an estate can challenge a will. Section 55.001 of the Estates Code allows “a person interested in an estate” to file a written opposition in a probate proceeding. Section 22.018(1) defines that person as “an heir, devisee, spouse, creditor, or any other having a property right in or claim against an estate being administered.”
Being on that list is necessary, but it isn’t enough to contest a will. Relying on Logan v. Thomason, 202 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. 1947), and Estate of Johnson, 631 S.W.3d 56 (Tex. 2021), the court explained that a contestant must prove “some legally ascertained pecuniary interest, real or prospective, absolute or contingent, which will be impaired or benefited, or in some manner materially affected, by the probate of the will.” Without that, the Texas Supreme Court has said, “a contestant is a mere meddlesome intruder.”
The key phrase is “by the probate of the will.” An heir who inherits under intestacy but gets nothing under the will is affected by whether the will is probated. A creditor usually isn’t. Estate debts get paid whether the estate passes under a will or by intestacy. In Logan, the Texas Supreme Court said it is “immaterial by whom the claim is paid, or whether the assets of the estate are administered under the will, or as in case of intestacy.” A creditor’s remedy is to pursue the claim against the estate, not to fight over the will.
Why the Ex-Wife’s Claims Didn’t Give Her Standing
Ruzynska offered two grounds for standing: her claims tied to the Tidwell sale proceeds (both her Brown I claims and her new survivorship theory), and her claim for the missing salvage vehicles. The court rejected both for the same reason.
On the sale proceeds, the court noted that in Brown I, Ruzynska never argued she was a joint tenant entitled to the entire fund after Brown’s death. She argued that the money should be split equally under the decree or that she should get the estate’s share as damages. The survivorship theory was “a completely different argument.” The court refused to weigh in: “Because it is not before us in this appeal, we make no comment on the merits of the claims on appeal in Brown I or her joint tenancy theory.”
It didn’t need to. Whichever theory Ruzynska advanced, the court said, “she has, at most, shown that she is an interested party.” She hadn’t shown that probating the will would affect her claim against the estate, which “can continue regardless of whether Brown’s assets are administered under a will.” The court cited Logan and a recent Fourteenth Court of Appeals case, Estate of Demel, No. 14-25-00245-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 5, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.), which made the same point: “Appellant’s contest of the will alone, even if successful, would not affect its pecuniary interest in any way; appellant would still maintain a claim against the estate.”
The salvage vehicle claim failed the same way. The parties argued at length over who was responsible for the vehicles and whether Ruzynska’s claim was barred by res judicata. The court set all of that aside. Even if she has a damages claim, it survives whether Brown’s assets pass under the will or by intestacy. So it couldn’t support a will contest either.
Because Ruzynska didn’t show standing, the court held the probate court did not err in dismissing her will contest, and it affirmed. The court didn’t reach her complaints about judicial bias or the administrator’s conduct, noting they weren’t necessary to the decision and hadn’t been raised in the probate court anyway.
The Takeaway
Brown shows the difference between having a claim against an estate and having the right to contest a will. A creditor, or someone claiming property by right of survivorship, may well be an interested person. But unless the outcome of the will contest actually changes what that person gets, the will contest is the wrong tool. The claim has to be pursued on its own.
For anyone who owns property with someone else, the lesson starts earlier. A right of survivorship in Texas has to be put in writing. Joint names on a deed won’t do it. And if you are divorcing, make sure the decree deals with every shared asset clearly, and follow through on the sale or transfer it orders. Property left half-divided can turn into years of litigation after one of you dies. If you believe an estate owes you money or property, talk to a probate attorney about presenting and pursuing that claim directly, rather than spending time and money on a will contest you may not have standing to bring.
Our Fort Worth Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with will contests, claims against an estate, and disputes over jointly owned property. 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 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.
