A Texas appeals court has affirmed a probate court ruling that a man lacked the legal standing to oppose his stepmother’s appointment as independent executor of his father’s estate.
The case, In re Est. of McCulloch, centred on the estate of David McCulloch, who died on August 14, 2022, leaving a pour-over will directing all property into the David and Vicki McCulloch Trust.
David McCulloch’s will named his wife, Vicki McCulloch, as independent executor, with Timothy and Bradley McCulloch listed as successor executors in the event she could not serve.
Timothy and Bradley are David’s sons from his marriage to Vicki, making them half-siblings to Kevin Wayne McCulloch, who is David’s son from his first marriage to Linda McCulloch.
Following David’s death, Vicki McCulloch, acting as surviving co-trustee of the trust, executed a First Amendment to the trust on September 1, 2023, revoking distributions that had previously been designated for the Kevin Wayne McCulloch Trust.
Kevin McCulloch moved to oppose Vicki’s appointment as independent executor, a challenge that ultimately required the court to examine whether he qualified as an interested person under Texas probate statutes.
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals, in its March 5, 2026 ruling, found that the validity of the First Amendment to the trust was not challenged before the court and therefore could not be considered in its analysis.
Because the trust amendment stood unchallenged, Kevin McCulloch had no pecuniary interest in David’s estate that was either affected or benefitted by the probate of the will, the court determined.
The court held that Kevin McCulloch does not qualify as an interested person as defined by the relevant statute, and therefore did not have standing to oppose Vicki’s appointment as independent executor.
With standing absent, the appeals court affirmed the probate court’s earlier order granting the plea to the jurisdiction, ending Kevin McCulloch’s challenge to the appointment.
The case illustrates the importance of establishing a direct financial interest in an estate before seeking to intervene in probate proceedings, as courts will assess standing as a threshold matter before addressing the underlying dispute.
For those who believe a trust amendment has wrongly eliminated their inheritance, the decision signals that challenging the amendment itself may be a necessary first step before contesting related probate appointments.