in the Estate of Adel Sheshtawy ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                       ACCEPTED
    14-14-00515-CV
    FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
    HOUSTON, TEXAS
    1/19/2015 1:48:25 PM
    CHRISTOPHER PRINE
    CLERK
    CASE NO. 14-14-00515-CV
    __________________
    FILED IN
    14th COURT OF APPEALS
    IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF             APPEALSHOUSTON, TEXAS
    1/19/2015 1:48:25 PM
    HOUSTON TEXAS               CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
    Clerk
    ___________________
    VALENTINA SPASSOVA SHESHTAWY, Appellant
    v.
    MICHAEL FUQUA, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ADEL
    SHESHTAWY, DECEASED, Appellant
    _________________________________________________________________
    On Appeal from Probate Court Number One
    Harris County, Texas
    Probate Court Cause No. 407,499-406
    _________________________________________________________________
    APPELLEE’S RESPONSE
    TO APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    Michael L. Fuqua, Attorney at Law
    Lead Counsel
    Fuqua & Associates, P.C.
    5005 Riverway, Suite 250
    Houston, Texas 77056
    (713) 960-0277 - Telephone
    (713) 960-1064 - Facsimile
    mlfuqua@fuqualegal.com
    Attorney for Appellee
    Michael L. Fuqua, Temporary Administrator
    of the Estate of Adel Sheshtawy, Deceased
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    Table of Contents..............................................................................................i
    Index of Authorities..........................................................................................ii
    Statement of Facts.............................................................................................1
    Response to Arguments in Reply Brief ...........................................................1
    Common Law Marriage Dispute..................................................1
    Preliminary Inventory and Appraisement....................................2
    Homestead Occupancy.................................................................2
    Settlement Agreement Required Sale of Homestead...................3
    Use of Sales Proceeds...................................................................4
    Contract Construction - Waiver of Homestead............................4
    Trial Court Properly Dismissed Valentina’s Action....................6
    Prayer.................................................................................................................7
    Certificate of Service.........................................................................................8
    Certificate of Compliance. ................................................................................9
    i
    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
    Cases
    Balandran v. Safeco Ins. Co., 
    972 S.W.2d 738
    , 741 (Tex. 1998).........................5
    Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. New Ulm Gas, Ltd.,
    
    940 S.W.2d 587
    , 587 (Tex. 1996).........................................................................5
    Langley v. Jernigan, 
    76 S.W.3d 752
    , 756
    (Tex.App. – Waco 2002, pet. filed)....................................................................5, 6
    Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc.,
    
    907 S.W.2d 517
    , 520 (Tex. 1995)......................................................................5, 6
    Tenneco Inc. v. Enterprise Prods. Co.,
    
    925 S.W.2d 640
    , 643 (Tex. 1996).........................................................................5
    Rules
    TEX.R.CIV.P. 91a...............................................................................................6, 7
    ii
    STATEMENT OF FACTS
    Appellee objects to Appellant’s statement of facts in Appellant’s Reply
    Brief and incorporates herein Appellee’s statement of facts set forth in Appellee’s
    Amended Brief.
    RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS IN REPLY BRIEF
    Common Law Marriage Dispute
    1.    This issue of whether a common law marriage existed between
    Appellant and Adel Sheshtawy is immaterial to the determination of the appellate
    issues in this case. Appellant’s common law marriage suit was fully and finally
    resolved by the Rule 11 and Final Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement
    Agreement”) entered into by the parties and approved by the trial court July 17,
    2013. Appellee’s Appendix, Item 3; ROA, pp. 32, 39-41; Appellee’s Appendix,
    Item 4; ROA, pp. 124-126. Appellant affirmatively waived any rights to which she
    would be entitled to receive as the decedent’s common law spouse by executing
    the settlement agreement. Appellee’s Appendix, Item 3; ROA, pp. 32-41;
    Appellee’s Appendix, Item 4; ROA, pp. 124-126.
    -1-
    Preliminary Inventory and Appraisement
    2.     Appellee’s Reply Brief fails to specify the manner in which the trial
    court’s approval of the preliminary inventory and appraisement in the probate
    proceeding was not made in accordance with the law, the facts relied upon to
    support her argument or any reference to credible evidence in the record on appeal
    to support her argument.
    3.     The decedent owned fee simple title to the real property in issue;
    therefore, the real property was properly listed as an estate asset in the preliminary
    inventory and appraisement filed in the trial court.
    4.     Valentina did not object to the inventory and appraisal until June 16,
    2014 - more than a year after she signed the settlement agreement, and the trial
    court properly refused to entertain objections which Valentina had expressly
    waived in the settlement agreement.
    Homestead Occupancy
    5.     Although the Court did not enter an order setting the property aside as
    homestead, Valentina and Lily have resided in the property continuously from the
    date of Adel’s death. No party made any attempt to remove Valentina and Lily
    from the property except in accordance with the settlement agreement. Appellee’s
    Appendix, Item 3; ROA, pp. 32, 35.
    -2-
    Settlement Agreement Required Sale of Homestead
    6.    The Settlement Agreement authorized and directed the sale of the
    property in issue to fund a majority of the cash payment to Valentina. Appellee’s
    Appendix, Item 3; ROA, pp. 32, 34-35. Valentina agreed to accept $145,000 in full
    and final settlement of all claims which were or could have been brought relating
    to Valentina’s common law marriage suit, Adel’s Estate, the residential real
    property located at 12206 Cabo Blanco Lane, or Adel’s two adult children, Nader
    and Hanya. Appellee’s Appendix, Item 3; ROA, pp. 32-35 (Emphasis added).
    7.    The Settlement Agreement provided that the property would be sold
    and Valentina would receive a cash payment of $100,000 from the sales proceeds
    at closing. Appellee’s Appendix, Item 3; ROA, pp. 32, 34-35.
    8.    The Settlement Agreement further provided that the property would
    be sold, up to $250,000 of the sales proceeds would be used to “purchase a new
    homestead for Lily” and proceeds pending the purchase of Lily’s new homestead
    would be used for short term suitable housing for Lily and Valentina. Appellee’s
    Appendix, Item 3; ROA, pp. 32, 35.
    9.    The trial court approved the settlement agreement. Appellee’s
    Appendix, Item 4; ROA, pp. 124-126.
    -3-
    10.    The trial court found it was necessary to sell the property as
    evidenced by the settlement agreement. ROA, pp. 137-139.
    Use of Sales Proceeds
    11.    Upon sale of the property, Temporary Administrator will be mandated
    by the trial court orders approving the settlement agreement and the sale of the
    property to remit $100,000 of the sales proceeds to Valentina, utilize up to
    $250,000 of the sales proceeds to acquire a new homestead for Lily, and use any
    proceeds pending the purchase of Lily’s new homestead for short term suitable
    housing for Lily and Valentina. Appellee’s Appendix, Item 4; ROA, pp. 124-126;
    ROA, pp. 137-139; Appellee’s Appendix, Item 3; ROA, pp. 32, 34-35.
    12.    Only to the extent funds remain after the satisfaction of each of the
    settlement agreement obligations to Lily and Valentina would any of the sales
    proceeds be available to pay estate administration expenses. ROA, pp. 137-139.
    13.    Therefore, Valentina’s assertion that insufficient sales proceeds will
    be available to purchase a new homestead for Lily are unfounded and without
    support in the record.
    Contract Construction - Waiver of Homestead
    9.     Valentina and Lily waived any homestead rights by entering into the
    Settlement Agreement expressly providing for: (a) the sale of the home in which
    -4-
    they resided; and (b) the purchase of a new homestead for Lily. Appellee’s
    Appendix, Item 4; ROA, pp. 124-126; ROA, pp. 137-139; Appellee’s Appendix,
    Item 3; ROA, pp. 32, 34-35.
    10.    The primary goal in construing a written contract is to ascertain and
    give effect to the intent of the parties as expressed in the instrument. Balandran
    v. Safeco Ins. Co., 
    972 S.W.2d 738
    , 741 (Tex. 1998).
    10.    If a written contract is worded so that it can be given a definite or
    certain legal meaning, then it is not ambiguous. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI
    Indus., Inc., 
    907 S.W.2d 517
    , 520 (Tex. 1995).
    11.    In interpreting the parties’ agreement, the reviewing court must
    examine all parts of the contract and the circumstances surrounding the
    formulation of the contract. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. New Ulm Gas,
    Ltd., 
    940 S.W.2d 587
    , 587 (Tex. 1996).
    12.    To establish waiver of a homestead right, there must be proof of clear,
    unequivocal and decisive acts showing an intent to waive. Langley v. Jernigan, 
    76 S.W.3d 752
    , 756 (Tex.App. – Waco 2002, pet. filed).
    13.    The intent to waive may be either expressly made or inferred from
    intentional conduct that is inconsistent with an intent to claim the right. Tenneco
    Inc. v. Enterprise Prods. Co., 
    925 S.W.2d 640
    , 643 (Tex. 1996).
    -5-
    14.    The intent to waive homestead rights is evidenced by the express
    provisions in the settlement agreement referencing the sale of the property, the use
    of the sales proceeds to fund the settlement payment to Valentina, and the
    requirement that a portion of the sales proceeds be used to purchase a new
    homestead for Lily. Appellee’s Appendix, Item 4; ROA, pp. 124-126; ROA, pp.
    137-139; Appellee’s Appendix, Item 3; ROA, pp. 32, 34-35; Langley v. Jernigan,
    
    76 S.W.3d 752
    , 756 (Tex.App. – Waco 2002, pet. filed).
    15.    The terms of the settlement agreement providing for the sale of the
    property are unambiguous and reflect that Valentina and Lily’s residence would be
    sold as a result of the negotiated settlement of the parties’ dispute. Nat’l Union
    Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 
    907 S.W.2d 517
    , 520 (Tex. 1995).
    Trial Court Properly Dismissed Valentina’s Injunction Suit as Baseless
    In response to Valentina’s injunction suit, Temporary Administrator
    asserted affirmative defenses including waiver, release, estoppel and res judicata.
    ROA, p. 99, 100. On May 23, 2014, Temporary Administrator moved to dismiss
    Valentina’s injunction suit as a baseless cause of action pursuant to TEX.R.CIV.P.
    91a. ROA, pp. 398-405. For the reasons set forth in Appellee’s Amended Brief
    and this Response, the trial court properly dismissed Valentina’s suit as baseless.
    ROA, pp. 406-407.
    -6-
    PRAYER
    For the foregoing reasons, Michael L. Fuqua, Temporary Administrator of
    the Estate of Adel Sheshtawy, Deceased, respectfully requests that this Honorable
    Court affirm the trial court’s order dismissing Appellant’s proceeding as a baseless
    cause of action pursuant to TEX.R.CIV.P. 91a and for such further relief to which
    he may be entitled.
    Respectfully submitted on this 19th day of January, 2015.
    FUQUA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
    5005 Riverway, Suite 250
    Houston, Texas 77056
    Telephone: 713.960-0277
    Facsimile: 713.960-1064
    mlfuqua@fuqualegal.com
    By:      /s/ Michael L. Fuqua
    Michael L. Fuqua
    State Bar No. 24055511
    COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
    Michael L. Fuqua, Temporary
    Administrator of the Estate of Adel
    Sheshtawy, Deceased
    -7-
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
    document has been sent in accordance with Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of
    Appellate Procedure upon each of the persons listed below on this 19th day of
    January, 2015
    Valentina Spassova Sheshtawy, pro se
    12206 Cabo Blanco Court
    Houston, Texas 77041
    email:      valentinasheshtawy@yahoo.com
    /s/ Michael L. Fuqua
    Michael L. Fuqua
    -8-
    CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
    In accordance with TEX.R.APP.P. 9.4(i)(3), the undesigned certifies that
    Appellee’s Response to Appellant’s Reply Brief contains 1,633 words.
    /s/ Michael L. Fuqua
    Michael L. Fuqua
    -9-