Texas jury finds stepson not adopted despite 1980 will calling him 'child'

In 1980, a Texas man drafted a will that referred to his stepson as “my child,” language that would later become the centre of a bitter family inheritance dispute. More than four decades after the will was signed, and after the man died in 2020, his stepson argued that he had been informally adopted and was therefore entitled to inherit under the document. Surviving relatives disagreed, insisting that affection, support, and familiar words in a will did not amount to a legal adoption.

A Harris County jury ultimately agreed with the relatives, finding that no legal or informal adoption had taken place. The case, Maniscalco v. Womack, was recently reviewed by Texas’ First Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment against the stepson’s claim. It is also documented by Justia Law, and details from it are shared below.The dispute began long before the courtroom fight.

Huland Eugene “Gene” Womack married Norma Womack in 1970. Norma brought two sons from an earlier marriage into the household: Jack Maniscalco and Tommy Maniscalco. Jack was not quite nine years old when Gene and Norma married, meaning Gene became a constant adult presence during much of Jack’s childhood. According to evidence described in the appellate case summary, Gene helped support the boys and took part in their upbringing, and Norma later testified that Gene had agreed to adopt them.In 1980, Gene executed a will leaving his estate to Norma.

The will also contained an important contingency: if Norma died before him, his estate would pass to “my child, JACK MADISON MANISCALCO, JR. and any other child or children legally adopted by me,” as per Justia Law. An addendum to the will likewise described Jack as Gene’s son and addressed Gene’s expectations for Jack and Tommy’s care. To anyone reading those documents without knowing the family history, the language could easily suggest that Jack was Gene’s legally recognised child.But the relationship between Gene and Norma did not last.

They separated in 1987 and divorced in 1992, as per Justia Law. In their divorce pleadings, the couple stated that no children had been born to or adopted during the marriage. Gene never filed a formal adoption proceeding for Jack, and the parental rights of Jack’s biological father were never terminated. Those facts would become central when the estate dispute reached court, because Texas law draws a clear distinction between a stepparent who acts like a parent and one who has legally adopted a child.What happened after Gene diedGene died in 2020.

At first, one of his brothers claimed that Gene had died without a valid will, which would have meant his estate would pass under Texas intestacy rules rather than according to the 1980 document. Jack responded by offering Gene’s will for probate and asserting that Gene had adopted him by estoppel, sometimes called equitable adoption. In practical terms, Jack argued that even if the adoption was never completed through formal legal proceedings, Gene’s conduct and promises should prevent his relatives from denying Jack the status of an adopted child.The case became a four-day jury trial.

Family members, friends, and other witnesses testified about Gene’s relationship with Jack and whether Gene had truly agreed to adopt him. Jack and Norma described a longstanding parent-child bond. They said Gene supported Jack, participated in his activities, and referred to him as a son. The will itself, with its reference to Jack as Gene’s child, was also part of the evidence supporting Jack’s position.The jury, however, was not persuaded that those facts established an adoption.

It held that Gene had not adopted Jack, either under the law or under the equitable doctrine on which Jack relied. The jury also found that Jack, Darren Womack and Richard Womack acted in good faith and with just cause in pursuing their respective claims, awarding attorneys’ fees. Thus, Jack’s emotional and familial ties to Gene did not translate into a right to inherit under the will.Why the language of the will was inadequateThe legal question wasn’t whether Gene loved Jack or whether Jack saw Gene as a father figure.

The issue was whether Gene had made an enforceable agreement to adopt Jack and whether the circumstances warranted treating the adoption as complete without formal legal action. Texas law requires more than a close stepparent relationship or the informal use of parental terms. A claimant must prove the elements needed for equitable adoption, including an enforceable or equitable basis for treating the decedent as having agreed to adopt the claimant.That distinction matters because wills are legal instruments, but they do not automatically perform every function people may assume they do.

Calling someone “my child” in a will can express affection, intended beneficiaries, or a personal understanding of family. It does not necessarily create an adoption, especially where the person writing the will had never adopted the child, never terminated the biological parent’s rights, and had earlier stated in divorce filings that no children had been adopted during the marriage.The appellate court treated the question as fact-intensive.

It considered the testimony about Gene’s role in Jack’s life, the wording of the will, the absence of an adoption proceeding, and the divorce record. In the end, the First Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s judgment. The jury’s rejection of Jack’s adoption-by-estoppel claim remained intact, as did the lower court’s rulings on jury argument, evidence, a requested mistrial, and attorneys’ fees.A family dispute with a legal lessonThe case is a reminder that family relationships can be real and meaningful without being legally formalised.

Gene may have been a father in every practical sense to Jack during his childhood. He may have supported him, helped raise him, and used the language of parenthood in his will. Yet the jury found that those facts did not prove the legal agreement and performance n…