In the Matter of the Estate of Henry Matthew Platt v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00097-CV
__________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
HENRY MATTHEW PLATT, DECEASED

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 1st District Court
Jasper County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 40130
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

J’Nette Allred appeals the trial court’s order revoking her Letters of

Administration in the Matter of the Estate of Henry Matthew Platt. 1 In three issues,

J’Nette complains about the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. For the reasons

discussed below, we affirm.

For ease, we will refer to the decedent and his family members by their first
1

names throughout the appeal.
1
Background

Henry Matthew Platt died on November 10, 2021. He was predeceased by his

parents, Jack Platt and Dorothy Platt. At the time of his death, he was survived by

three siblings: J’Nette Platt Allred, James Mark Platt, and Shirley Nell Waggoner

Russell.2 Henry was also survived by a niece named Angela Clemmons. On January

31, 2022, J’Nette filed an Application for Letters of Administration alleging that

Henry died intestate. The court signed an order on April 20, 2022, appointing J’Nette

as independent administrator of Henry’s estate. Shirley and James subsequently filed

pleadings contesting J’Nette’s appointment.

On March 15, 2023, Angela filed an Application to Probate a Holographic

Will and for Issuance of Letters Testamentary. The application alleged that Henry

left a valid will dated June 24, 2012, which was never revoked and named Angela

to serve as independent executor. The application also asserted that the will was

wholly in Henry’s handwriting and that his “signature is subscribed thereto.” The

holographic will leaves Henry’s entire estate to Angela and appoints Angela to serve

as independent executor without bond.

On February 14, 2024, the trial court held a bench trial on the will contest.

Several witnesses testified. Angela testified that Henry is her uncle and was like a

2
J’Nette Platt Allred’s name is Dorothy J’Nette Platt Bower West Allred
according to her siblings’ response, but we refer to her as J’Nette.
2
“second father” to her. In 2012, Henry lived with Angela in Abilene because Henry

was “having a hard time making ends meet” after the death of his parents, and Henry

“had done so much for me during my life.” Angela claimed familiarity with Henry’s

handwriting after seeing letters and cards he had written and watching him write his

signature. Angela testified that she recognized the handwriting in the body of the

will and that it appeared to be Henry’s handwriting. Angela further testified that she

recognized the signature at the bottom of the will and that it was Henry’s signature

as it was in 2012.

William Candler testified by deposition. William knew Henry for about

twenty years. William explained that Henry knew he was ill and would pass away.

William, who worked in real estate, knew “what happens when people die without

wills[,]” and knew that Henry had an “intense dislike for [his] brother[,]” suggested

that Henry should write a handwritten will. After researching how to draft a

handwritten will, Henry asked William to use his desk and wrote the holographic

will. William testified he witnessed Henry write the handwritten will.

William testified that the entire will was in Henry’s handwriting and contained

Henry’s signature. William further testified that Henry signed the will in his

presence. William was not surprised that Henry’s will left all his assets to Angela as

William explained that Henry was “adamant he wanted her to have it because he had

been living with her and she had spent money taking care of him.” After writing and

3
signing the will, Henry handed it to William in William’s office. William put the

will in a file and then “kinda forgot about it.” William kept the will in his filing

cabinet from June 24, 2012, until he relinquished possession of it. Nothing occurred

which led William to believe that Henry replaced or revoked the handwritten will.

Vincent Jason Lour Blanc also testified by deposition. Vincent met Henry

through rock clubs and the pair developed a friendship. During their friendship,

Vincent saw Henry’s handwriting and his signature. Looking at the handwritten will

dated June 24, 2012, Vincent testified that the will contains Henry’s handwriting and

Henry’s signature.

Curt Baggett is a handwriting expert hired by J’Nette. When Baggett was

called to testify, Angela’s counsel requested and obtained the trial court’s permission

to question Baggett on voir dire to examine whether he was qualified to provide

expert testimony. On voir dire, Baggett testified he never met Henry, nor did he meet

Henry’s parents. Baggett indicated he was asked to examine several documents in

this case. The first document, identified as “HMPQ1” was the holographic will dated

June 24, 2012, which Baggett compared to other documents identified as “KI, K2,

K3, K4, and K5[.]”Baggett agreed that HMPQ1 contains the name of Henry

Matthew Platt but that documents K1, K2, K3, K4, and K5 do not. Instead, those

documents contain the names of Jack Platt and Dorothy Platt. Baggett conceded he

did not examine any other documents containing the handwriting of Jack Platt or

4
Dorothy Platt and never observed Henry, Jack, or Dorothy write or sign their

individual names. Baggett testified that he examined documents K1 through K5

which had Jack Platt’s signature on them. According to Baggett, he understood at

the time he examined the documents that Jack Platt’s signatures were actually

written by Henry, but he admitted those documents did not contain Henry’s name or

Henry’s purported signature.

Citing Texas Rules of Evidence 703 and 705, Shirley’s counsel then objected

to Baggett’s testimony as an expert on the grounds his opinions were not “based on

a good foundation of data” because he did not examine any documents with Henry’s

name on them other than the handwritten will. Shirley’s counsel also objected that

Baggett could not offer lay opinions because he had no personal knowledge of

Jack’s, Dorothy’s, or Henry’s handwriting. Angela’s counsel joined in Shirley’s

objection that Baggett’s testimony as an expert lacked sufficient foundation since

Baggett had not shown that he compared Henry’s handwriting to the will in question,

and the signatures Baggett analyzed were those of Jack and Dorothy, not Henry.

J’Nette’s counsel responded that the trial testimony had already established

that Jack and Dorothy were blind and Henry took care of them, so the documents

were provided for examination because Henry had signed them on Jack’s and

Dorothy’s behalf. J’Nette’s attorney conceded that Baggett did not analyze any

documents containing Henry’s signature but argued that J’Nette had witnessed

5
Henry signing one of the documents for his parents and offered to call J’Nette to

testify as much. The trial court sustained the objection “for right now” but allowed

J’Nette to testify before continuing with Baggett’s testimony.

J’Nette testified that documents K1 through K4 are Travelers Express money

orders paid to Republic National Bank of Dallas as payments on a mobile home and

that document K5 is the mobile home contract. J’Nette explained that the names on

the document were Jack H. Platt and Dorothy H. Platt, but that the signatures were

Henry’s handwriting. Angela’s counsel objected that there was a lack of foundation

for J’Nette’s opinion testimony, and the trial court sustained the objection. J’Nette

then explained that she, James, Shirley, and Henry were all in their parents’ presence

when the mobile home documents were signed by Henry because both of her parents

were blind. According to J’Nette, Henry “signed everything for them[.]” J’Nette

explained that she also knew Henry’s handwriting because he signed her report cards

for school. She confirmed that she was there when the traveler’s checks were signed,

and that Henry signed them as his father, Jack.

J’Nette’s counsel then requested to continue with Baggett’s testimony, and

the following colloquy occurred:

[ANGELA’S COUNSEL]: Your Honor, first they need to offer
into evidence the documents that they’re attempting to and to which
I’m going to object that there are no business record affidavits or any
other document authenticating these business records, other than her
testimony, which is hearsay, that the signatures on the document are by
the decedent is hearsay.
6
[J’NETTE’S COUNSEL]: It wouldn’t be hearsay if she was
there, Your Honor.

[ANGELA’S COUNSEL]: It’s hearsay that his signature was
being used on those documents for that business purpose and there is
no business record affidavit from the mobile home company or from
the bank where these documents were apparently obtained. So the
documents have not been authenticated, and they contain hearsay in that
they’re saying that Henry signed them. That is hearsay.

THE COURT: All right. As to hearsay, I’m – I’m going to have
to agree with that. I’ll sustain that.

Shirley’s counsel then argued that in light of the trial court’s ruling that the

comparison documents were inadmissible, there was no foundation for Baggett’s

testimony. The trial court agreed and granted the objection. J’Nette was then asked

about the handwriting on the holographic will and testified that it contained

“printing” but that she had “never seen Henry print anything.” She testified that

“Henry handwrote everything and he had beautiful handwriting… It was always in

cursive.” She did not believe anything in the holographic will “look[ed] like

anything of his handwriting.” She also testified she had no knowledge of Henry’s

creating a will.

After the conclusion of the trial, the court signed an Order Probating Will,

Granting Independent Administration and Authorizing Letters Testamentary, and

Revoking Prior Letters of Administration on February 16, 2024. The order found

that the will executed on June 24, 2012 was executed with the formalities and

solemnities and under the circumstances required by law to make it a valid will; that
7
the will was not self-proved, but was proved from the sworn testimony in open court

of two persons familiar with the signature of the Decedent; and that the will has not

been revoked by the Decedent. The Order appointed Angela Clemmons as

Independent Executor of the Will, granted her Letters Testamentary, revoked the

Order Authorizing Independent Administration and Letters of Independent

Administration dated April 20, 2022 granting letters to J’Nette Allred, and revoked

all letters of administration issued to her. On the same day, the trial court signed an

Order to Remove Independent Administrator which removed J’Nette Allred as

Independent Administrator of the estate of Henry Matthew Platt.

J’Nette appealed raising three issues for our review. First, J’Nette complains

that the trial court erred in finding that her testimony regarding Henry’s signature on

the traveler’s checks and mobile home contract was hearsay. In her second issue,

J’Nette complains the trial court erred in ruling Exhibits K1 through K5 were

inadmissible. Lastly, J’Nette complains that the trial court erred in excluding

Baggett’s testimony.

Analysis

To preserve a complaint for appellate review, the record must show, among

other things, that a complaint was made to the trial court by a timely objection,

motion or request that complied with the Texas Rules of Evidence or the Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(B). “A party may claim error

8
in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right

of the party and…if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its

substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context.”

Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2).

J’Nette complains that the trial court found that her testimony about

documents K1 through K5 was hearsay, but since Angela objected both to J’Nette’s

testimony and the documents themselves, the record is unclear regarding which

objection the trial court sustained. What is clear from the record is that none of

J’Nette’s testimony was actually excluded as hearsay, because the hearsay

objections were lodged and sustained after J’Nette had finished testifying about

documents K1 through K5, and Angela never requested the trial court to strike or

disregard any portion of J’Nette’s testimony. Therefore, we conclude that with

respect to J’Nette’s first issue, nothing has been preserved for our review.

Accordingly, we overrule J’Nette’s first issue.

The record also does not show that J’Nette made an offer of proof regarding

documents K1 through K5. Although Angela’s counsel suggested that before

recalling Baggett, J’Nette needed to offer documents K1 through K5 into evidence,

the documents were not marked as exhibits, were not offered into evidence, and are

not included in the Reporter’s Record on appeal. As indicated above, Angela’s

counsel objected not only that the documents were hearsay but also that J’Nette’s

9
testimony was hearsay, and it is unclear which objection the trial court sustained.

“To preserve error concerning the exclusion of evidence, the complaining party must

actually offer the evidence and secure an adverse ruling from the court.” Schulze v.

Cardenas, No. 09-22-00001-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 2225, at *3 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont Mar. 28, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (internal quotation marks omitted)

(citing Bobbora v. Unitrin Ins. Servs., 255 S.W.3d 331 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no

pet.)). Because J’Nette did not offer the documents into evidence, she did not

preserve her second issue for appellate review. See Threet v. Elbert, No. 09-22-

00065-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 2771, at *21 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 27,

2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). We overrule J’Nette’s second issue.

Lastly, the record does not show what the substance of Baggett’s testimony

would have been had he testified. Even if we were able to discern from context that

Baggett would have testified that in his opinion the handwriting in the holographic

will did not match Henry’s handwriting in the comparison documents, Baggett’s

testimony would not have been conclusive; the trial court would have been required

to assess Baggett’s credibility and weigh his testimony against that of the witnesses

who testified the handwriting and signature in the holographic will were Henry’s.

Without an offer of proof, we cannot assess whether the exclusion of Baggett’s

testimony “probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment.” See Tex. R.

App. P. 44.1(a)(1); In re Brown, No. 09-10-00589-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 8136,

10
at *25 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Sep. 27, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“[W]ithout

an offer of proof we can never determine whether the exclusion of the evidence was

harmful.”). We overrule J’Nette’s third issue.

Conclusion

Having overruled all of J’Nette’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s order.

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS
Justice

Submitted on August 22, 2025
Opinion Delivered January 29, 2026
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

11