in the Estate of Louis S. Bernal ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
4-15-00499-CV
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
11/16/2015 12:00:00 AM
KEITH HOTTLE
CLERK
COURT OF APPEAL NO. O4-15-00499-CV
FILED IN
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 4th COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
FOR THE FOURTH SUPREMEJUDICIAL DISTRICT
11/15/2015 7:58:36 PM
KEITH E. HOTTLE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS Clerk
ROBERTGOMEZ,
APPELLANT
V.
BERNAL, INDEPEI\DENTEXECUTOROF THE ESTATE OF LOUIS A.
BERNAL. APPELLEE
RESTRICTEDAPPEAL FROM
2015-PC-0983
IN TH ESTATE OF ) IN PROBATECOURT
)
LOUIS S. BE]RNAL ) NUMBER 1
)
DECE ED ) BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
Appell t wajves oral argument.
TO TH HONORABLEFOURTHCOURTOF'APPEALS;
COM NOW the Appellant, Robert Gomez,who files this his Brief in Supportof his
Restri Aptrreal.
submitted,
Respectfully
ReedGreene, MPA, JD
26254IH10West,Suite135
Boeme,Texas78006
Tel: (210)826-1233
Fax:(210)463-9241
By: /S/-__-
ReedGreene
StateBarNo. 08390970
Attorneyfor Appellant
JenyH. Kagan
TexasBarNo. 24008963
1600Culebra Ave.
SanAntonio,Texas78201
Tel.(210)737-0333
Fax.( 210)738- 0088
Attorneyfor Appellant
Certificate of Service
certily that atrue copy of the abovewas servedon eachattorneyof record or
partyin accordancewith the TexasRules of Civil Procedureon NovemAergiZOl,S.
ReedGreene
Attorney for Appellant
Index of Authorities
74rham mentto theU.S.Constitution
..... 13
Amen e n t l 9 t o t h eT e x a sC o n s t i t u t i o.n. . . . l3
Statutesnd Rules
Tex.Ci P r a c&, R e m C
. o d e$ 5 1 . 0 1 3 ....,.,.4,6
Texas Code,
$ 2 2 . 081
Texas Code,
522.034 . . . . 7B,
TexasE t a t eCs o d e$,1 0 1 . 0 0110, 1 . 0 0130, 1 . 0 5 1 . . . . . . 11
Texas
TexasE tesCode,$ 254.001 8
Texas Code.6254.002. ........ o
/
TexasR le of AppellateProcedure25 . . . . .. 9
Tex.R.
Tex.R.
Cases
Eckhard v . Q r . r a l i t eestta l , 7 5 1F 3 d 6 7 4( 5 r nC i r . ) . ......12
Alex Boutique,134S.W.3d845(Tex.2004)
v. L,ynda's
Bunow Arce,997S.W.2d229(Tex.l999) 10
203( Tex.1999) .
Cor p..997S.W ,2d
C o .v. V a l e roE n er gy
IngersolR a n cl .......13
Huiev. ( Tex.l996) .
S h a zo9, 2 2 5 .W.2 d 920 ..........11
lll
Bestv. ya nA u toGro u pIn 670( Tex.l990)
, c.,786S.W .2d .........6
Garcia I n s u r a n C , 5 8( T e x . 1 9 8 8. ) .
c eo .o f P a , 7 5 1S . W . 2 8d 5 7 8 ........6
King v. u e r6, 8 8S . W . 28d4 5( T e x . l 9 8 5 ) .....6
Mont e ryv. K e n n e d y, 309( Tex.1984)
6 6 9S .W.2d . ......11
Brown MclennonCountyChildren's
Clinic,6275.W.2d390
(Tex.1
In re e of Hutchins,829S.W.2d 295(Tex.App.- CorpusChristi,
te92),
, 1 5s . w . 2 d5 5 1( T e x . l 9 9 1 ) .
c o r p .v . M o f f i t 8 ......7
Stonev, w ye rsT i tl eIn s.C o rp.,554S.W .2d183,185( Tex.I9l7) ......12
514,577( Tex.I975) .
Humane S o c'yv. A u sti nN a t'lB a nk,531S.W .2d ...........1
1
Oilwell ivision,United StatesSteelCorporationv. Fryer,493 SW
2d487(
45 S.W.2d572(Tex.Com.App.1932,holding
Wilson . Jones, ,... .,.........12
approved)
v . I ( r a h l1, 5 5T e x . 2 7 0 . 2 8S5. W . 2 1d 7 9( 1 9 0 5.) ..........8
Gamble B u t c h e e , T
8T S . W . 8 6(l 1 8 9 5 )
e x .6 4 3 , 3 0 ...........8
B a u m a n8,4T e x .1 7 4 7 . 8 2( 1 8 9 2 ) .
, 9S . W 3 .........7
66 Tex.442,I S.W.308(1886)
Kenned v. Upshaw,
Fowler S t a g n e r ,T5e5x . 3 9(31 8 8 1 ) . ..........9
Piercev. State,113 S.W.3d431.439(Tex.App.-Texarkana
2003),
writ refl .............8
iv
Ludlow Delleruy, 959S.W.2d265(Tex.App.-Houston
[14thDi . l 1 9 9 7n, ow r i t ) . . . . . . . . . .1.1
Hawtho e v. rGuenther,9lT
S.W,2d924(Tex.App.-Beaumont
1996,writ
denied).
Enserch ploration,Inc. v. Gardner,836 S.W.2d739 (Tex.App.Eastland
t992), w r i t .. . .. . . . 8
Geeslin . Mclllhenney,788 S.W.2d683 (Tex.App.-Austin
1990,no writ). ..........11
TitleIns.Cotp.,537S.W.2d55,67(Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus
Stonev. Lawyers
Christi 7 6 ) , r e v ' od no t h egr r o u n d s , 5 S d 8 3( T e x .1 9 7 7 ) .
5 4. W . 2 1 ..........12
Moore MooreDrillingCompany v. White,345S.W.2d550(Tex.Civ.App.--
Dallas1 6 1 , v r r i t r e f d n . r . e . ) .....12
mo .v . D a n i eM
Phillips e t r o l e u C 9 . W . 29
l o t o rC o . " 1 4S d 7 9. . .........12
(Tex.Ci
In re of Rosborovgh, 542S.W.2d685(Tex.App.-
Tex 1 9 7 6 )w, r i t r e f d n . r . e . . .....7
Huntv. 551S.W.2d764(Tex.Civ.App.- Tyler,1971)
11e,
No writ. ...........8
Moore MooreDrilling Companyv. White,345 S.W.2d550
(Tex.Ci. A p p . - - D a l l1a9s6 1w, r i tr e f dn . r . e . ) .........12
Specia , Specia292S.W.2d818(Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio
1 9 5 6w, rL -t w^ l l ru' ] l -l . *t . ^w .\ L 6 l
Scan v. Beto,234S.W.2d695(Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1950,no writ) . 8
Phillips troleumCo.v. DanielMotorCo.,149S.W.2d979
(Tex.Ci.App.--Eastland1941,writ dism'djudgm'tcor.). l 1
TABLE OF CONTBNTS
Index Authorities ., iii
Table
Certi e o f S e r v i c e. . . . . . . . . . .2
Listof r l i e sa n dC o u n s e.l . . . . . .
Stat tofJurisdiction. .........2
Stat ofFacts and ProceduralBacksround
ofReview .....4
ISSUESR E S E N T E D ,..,....4
Discussi
POINT
POINT
POINT
POINT
N O .F I V E
POINT F E R R O R . . . . . . .9
POINT F E R , R ONRO . S X . ........9
POiNT F E R R O R N O . S E V .E. N
.. ......10
POINT F E R R O R N O . E I G H T . . . . . .1
.0
POINT F ERRORNO. NINE 10
N O .T E N
POINT F E R R O R , , . , , , . . ,1, 2
Conclus and Prayer 13
Lis_to.fParlies g{rd Qounsel
omez,Appellant, is a Deviseeunder an unprobatedcodicil of the Decedent.
ReedG , MPA,JD
2 6 2 5 4 r 10 Vy'est,Suite 135
Boerne, exas78006
Tel: (21 ) 826-1233
Fax:(21 ) 463-9241
State No.08390970
Attorne for Appellant
JenyH. Kagan
TexasB No. 24008963
I 600 ebra.Ave.
SanAn nio,'fexas 78201
T e l .( 2 1 ) 737-0333
Fax.(21 ) 7 3 8 -0 0 8 8
Atto for Appellant
Phillip is the Appellee.
, Executorof the Estateof Louis. S. Bernal,Deceased,
C e c i l ' res"BainIII
THE LEY FIRM
1 5 8 s0. ln St.,Suite200
Boerne,Texas78006
Fax.(8 ) 8 1 6 - 3 3 8 8
Attorne for Appellee
Statementof Jurisdiction
ppellantswould show that this HonorableCourl hasjurisdiction under TRAP 25
and45. Appellant demonstratesthat the Trial Courl committedreversibleerror and
requesthat this Court reverseand remandthejudgment of the Court below'
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
March 19,2015, Philip Bernal filed his Application to ProbateWill and for
estarnentary.Clerk's Record(CR), p. 4. ln that Application Philip Bernal stated
5. Decedent whichwas
left a validWill datedJune2,2000,
never revoked and is filed herewith.
6. The Will was madeself-provedas requiredby law.
7. Upon information and belief, Decedentalso left a Codicil
to his Will ("Codicil"), datedFebruary1A,2074,which was never
revokedand is filed herewith. The subscribingwitnessesto the
Codicil areUrlandoMolina and Miriam Vasquez.whosecurrent
addressesare unknown.
Id. By ion of the codicil, the beneficiariestheretobecamepartiesto the litigation.
The ad onal beneficiariesand leeateeswere Nicole Bernal.ChristopherBernal,Aaron
iley Bernal,Philip Bernaland RoberlGomez,the Appellant. CR, p. 16.
Apr:il13,2015,thetrialcourthelda hearingon theApplication.CR,p.29-30.
No no wasgivento thebeneficiaries underthe Codicil. SeeCR,p.4-40.
andlegatees
At the inp the trial court found. recitedand ordered:
The Court heardthe evidenceand reviewedthe Will and the other
umentsfiled hereinand finds that the allegationscontainedin the
mencledApplicationare true;but that the Codicil filed in this causeis
adrnittedto probate;that notice and citation have beengiven in the
and for the length of time requiredby law; ... It is ORDERED that
Wi[l, but not the Codicil, is admittedto probate,and the Clerk of this
in the
ourt is ORDEREDto recordthe Will, with the application,
inutesof thisCourt...It is ORDEREDthatno bondor othersecurityis
uired and that, uponthe takingand filing of the oathrequiredby law,
ters Testamentaryshall issueto PHILIP BERNAL, who is appointedas
t Executorof Decedent'sEstate.and no other action shall be
in this Court other than the return of an Inventory, Appraisement and
ist of Claims as requiredby law. No Notice to Beneficiariesas required
y law....
S IGN E Don Apr il 13th,2015.
JSI KellyM. Cross
JudgePresiding
cR, p.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
llantbringsthis restrictedappeal,seekingreversalandremanddueto eror.
Generall speaking,a restrictedappealdirectly attacksthejudgment within six months
after the udgmentwas signed,by a party to suit, who did not participatein the actual
trial, an the error he complainsof is apparentfrom the face of the record. Tex. Civ.
Prac.& e m.C o d e$ 5 1 .0 1 3T; ex.R. App.Pr o.26.1;Tex. v.
R.App.Pr o.45;Alexander
u e , I 3 4 S . W . 3 d8 4 5 , 8 4 8( T e x . 2 0 0 4 ) ;I n r e E s t a t eo f H u t c h i n s , 8 2 S
9 .W.
2d295, 97 (Tex.App.- CorpusChristi,1992)writ den.
courtsignedtheOrderon April 13,2015.CR,p.29-30. Appellantfiledhis
thefirst
Appealon July6,2015. CR,p.35-36. Thissatisfied
Noticeo Restricted
element.By virtueof his beneficiaryandlegateestatus,Appellantandthe other
proceeding,
individ ls namedin theCodicilwerepartiesto theprobate He did not
partici in the hearingand did not file any postjudgmentmotions. CR, p. 33-34. If
thisCou finds er:rorapparenton the face of the record,the Order Admitting the Will to
Probate void and must be remandedto the trial court for further proceedings.
ISSUES PRESEINTED
ERRORNO. ONE
THE L COURTCOMMITTEDREVERSIBLEERRORBECAUSETHEREIS
NO EVI E OR PROOFTHAT THE CODICILWAS NOT ADMISSIBLETO
PROBA
F ERRORNO. TWO
THE AL COURTCOMMITTEDREVERSIBLEERRORBECAUSETHEREIS
NO NO CE IN ANY PLEADINGOR ELSEWHERETHAT THE CODICILWAS
NOT MISSIBLETO PROBATE;THUS,THEREIS A MATERIALVARIANCE
BETW TFIE PLEADINGS AND THE PROOF.
F ERRORNO. THREE
THE IAL COURTCOMMITTEDREVERSIBLEERRORIN NOT ADMITTING
THEC DICIL TO PROBATEBECAUSETHE CODICILCOULDBE PROVED.
POINT F ERRORNO. FOUR
THE AL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BECAUSE THE PROOF
OF FA ISERRONEOUS.
POINT F ERRORNO. FIVE
THE AL COURTCOMMITTEDREVERSIBLE ERRORBECAUSETHE
PUBLIS ED ]PLEADINGAND CITATIONDO NOT REQUESTCOURTPROBATE
WILL D NOT CODICIL.
POINT F ERRORNO. SIX
THE DUTY TOWARDDEVISEES
UI-ORBREACHEDI-IISF'IDUCIARY
LINDE THE CODICIL.
POINT F ERRORNO. SEVEN
THE E UTORCOMMITTEDFRAUD ON THE COURTAND ON THE CODICIL
BENE IARIES.
NO. EIGHT
POINT F ER.ROR
THE E UTORBREACHEDDUTY OF ORDINARYCARETO THE
BEN IARIESOF THE CODICIL.
POINT F ERRORNO. NINE
THE AL C]OURTERREDBY NOT REQUIRINGAPPELLEETO
PARTY.
JOINT E APPELLANTAS A NECESSARY
DISCUSSION
POINT F ERRORNOS.ONE.TWO AND THREE
THE AL COURTCOMMiTTEDREVERSIBLEERRORBECAUSETHEREiS
NO EVI ENCEOR PROOFTHAT THE CODICILWAS NOT ADMISSIBLETO
PROBA E.
THE T AL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLEERROR BECAUSE THERE IS
NO NO CE IN ANY PLEADINGOR ELSEWHERE THAT THE CODICILWAS
NOT MISSIBLETO PROBATE:THUS"THEREIS A MATERIAL VARIANCE
BETW T]F{EPLEADINGSAND THE PROOF.
THE AL COURTCOMMITTEDREVERSIBLEERRORIN NOT ADMITTING
THE DICIL TO PROBATEBECAUSETHE CODICILCOULDBE PROVED.
pafty may appeala finaljudgmentto the courl of appealsby petitionfor writ of
errorby mplying with the requirementsset forth below:
(a) iling Petition.The party desiringto sueout a writ of error shall file with the
clerkof he courl in which the judgment was rendereda written petition signedby him or
by his rnev. and addressedto the clerk.
o ParticipatingParty at Trial. No party who participateseither in personor by
his in the actualtrial of the casein the trial court shall be entitledto review by
the co of appealsthrough meansof writ of error.
(c) equisitesof Petition. The petition shall statethe namesand residencesof the
parties versely interested,shall describethejudgment with sufficient certaintyto
identify t and shall statethat the appellantdesiresto removethe sameto the court of
appeals r revisionand correction.
( Ver non1986)Tex.
Tex.CivP ra c.& R e m.C o d eA n n.$ 51.013 ; R. App.P.45;Hutch i ns ,
Id.;S Antonio1956,writ refd
292S.W.2d818(Tex.Civ.App,--San
n.r.e.).
ppellantchallengesthe probateof decedent's
will by writ of error.He is an
person"inthe decedent's
estate.
SeeEstates He is entitledto
Code,$22.018.
the probateof the will by writ of error. Hutchins,Id.
determininga "no evidence"question,an appellatecourt considersonly that
and reasonableinferencestherefromthat tend to supportthe findings of the trier
of facts, isregardingall contraryevidenceand inferences.Best v. Rlran Auto Group.
Inc.,78 S .W.2 d Kjng
6 7 0 ,6 1 1 (T e x.1990) , S.W ,2d845,846( Tex.1985) .
; v. Bauer688
a scintilla of evidencesupportsthe findings,they must be upheld.Garciav.
1 . W . 28
f P a . , 7 5S , 5 8( T e x . 1 9 8 8 ) .
d5 78
I n d iding whether the petitioner for a writ of error has met the requirementthat
grror t' appalentfrom the face of the record,"the court "may considerall of the papers
on file i the appeal,includingthe statementof lacts."DSC Fin. Corp. v. Moffit' 815
s.w.2d51 (T'ex.1991).
Ad attackby writ of erroron ajudgmentprobatinga will mustcomplywith the
flrrst,thi andfourthrequirements there
setout in Brown,627S.W.2dat392.However,
is no irementthatpetitionerbe a parlyto the suit;all thatis requiredis thatthe
petitio pafty"in theestate.
bean "interested 292S.W.2dat 819.Appellant
Specia,
meetsal of the requirementsnecessaryto appealby writ of error'
T Code requiresthat certainelementsbe provedto the satisfactionof the court
priorto he ad:missionof a will to probateand the issuanceof letterstestamentaryor of
admini ration. It is the duty of the court in a proceedingto probatea will to determine
that the ill bt;ine offered for probatemeetsthe statutoryrequisitesbefore admitting it to
542S.W.2d685,688(Tex.App.--Texarkana1976),
of Rosborough,
probate.In re Estate
writ n.r.e).
s the Court knows, a testamentarywriting that is supplementaryto an earlier
inst tisoalleda..codicil,'.@,84Tex.l]4,19S'w.382
(18e2).It alsoincludesa testamentary thatdirectshow propertymaynot be
instrument
dispo of. lfex. EstatesCode, $22.034. The documentmarked"Addendum to Original
will", a "codicil". As usedin the EstatesCode,the term "will" includesa codicil.
Tex. tesCodeAnn. $22.034(1). andeffect,a codicilmayaddto or
In its operation
modify provisionsof a will. Hunt v. Knolle,551 S.W.2d764(Tex.Civ. App.-
Tyler, 1 77) no writ. A courtmaynot prohibita personfrom executinga codicilto an
'Iex.
existing ill. CodeAnn. $253.001(b).
Estates
"materialvariance"betweenthe pleadingsand proof is fatal and rendersa
v. Gardner,836 S.W.2d739741 (Tex' App'
judgme void. EnserchExploration.Inc.
-Eastl 1992), The varianceis materialif it operatedto the Respondent'ssurpriseor
prejudi d hisrights.Piercev. State,113S.W.3d 431.439(Tex.App.-Texarkana
2003). Llantwas prejudicedby the failure to admit the codicil as he did not receive
hisbeq underit, so thejudgmentis void.
witnessesto the Codicil, Urlando Molina and Miriam Vasquez,the notary,
Reyes,and the attorney,if any, who preparedit, are and were competent
Appellant stipulatesthat the codicil was not self-provingbut would show it
was if not
ible of proof. TheEstatesCoderequireseverylastwill andtestament,
wholly i the handwriting of the testator,to be attestedby two or more "credible
wit " TFIX.ESTATESCODE S 254.001.It is long settledthat "crediblewitness"is
synony witness."
with "competent v. Krahl,155Tex' 210,285S'W'2d
Lehmann
v.
87Tex.643,30S.W.861(1895);Kennedy
r 7 9 , 7 (1955);Gamblev. Butchee,
to a will is onewho
witness
66 Tex.442,I S.W.308(1336).A competent
recei no pecuniary v. Beto,234S.W.2d695,698
benefitunderits terms.Scandurro
S'W'2dat 180(husband
(Tex.C . App.--Waco1950,no writ).SeealsoLehmann,285
credibl witnessto will under which wife was legatee);Gamble,30 S.W. at 862 (wife
credibl witnessto will underwhich husbandwas legatee).Conversely,a person
interest as taking under a will is incompetentto testify to establishit' See
55Tex.393,397(1881);Nixon,
Fowlerv. Stagner,
TEX. TATESCODE$ 25a.002;
38Tex. 298. The Trial Courl ened by not allowing the attorneyor one of the
witn to provethe Codicil.
POINT F ERRORNOS.FOUR.FIVE AND SIX
THE AL C]OURTCOMMITTEDREVERSIBLEERRORIN NOT ADMITTING
THE C ICII-TO PROBATEBECAUSETHE PROOFOF'FACTSIS ERRONEOUS.
THE L COURTCOMMITTEDREVERSIBLEERRORBECAUSETHE PROOF
OF DE AND OTHER FACTS IS ERRONEOUS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
MENTI N A},IY DEFECTIN THE CODICILWHICH WOULD PREVENTiTS
ADMI ION O PROBATE.
THE AL COIJRTCOMMIT]'EDREVERSIBLEERRORBECAUSETHE
PLEAD GS AND CITATIONDO NOT REQUESTCOURTPROBATEWILL AND
NOT E CODICiL.
"Proof of Death and other Facts",unlike the Application, which was
publi statesas follows: "ljpon informationand belief,Decedentalso left a Codicil to
his will "Codicil"), datedFebruary10,2014,which was neverrevoked,as far as I
know." R, Pp. 17-18. It givesno indicationthereis a problemwith the Codicil. Id.
The tor's Applicationto Probatewill states:
alsoleft a Codicil to his will
pon informationand belief, Deceder-rt
icil").datedFebruary10.2014,whichwasneverrevokedandis
led hr:rewith. The subscribingwitnessesto the Codicil are Urlando
olina and Miriam Vasquez,whosecurrentaddressesare unknown.
cR.,p. . The notary to the Codicil is Angelina Reyes,who is also a witness. Id.
The Ex utor amendedhis Application,and it is silentas to the Codicil. CR., p'
on March19,2015,states:
19-20. e Citation,published
At,L PERSONSinterestedin the Estateof LOUIS S. BERNAL,
ECEASED.AKA LOUISS.BERNAL,JR.,number2015PC0983,
HILIP BERNAL has filed in the ProbateCourt No. I of Bexar County,
exas,an applicationfor the probateof the last will and testamentand
icil(s) of LOUIS S. BERNAL, DECEASED,AKA LOUIS S'
ERNAL, JR...
cR.,p 7 TheAmendedApplicationwasnot publishedasof thedateof the
hearing cil.ationwas neverissuedon the AmendedApplication. The
Application did not put Appellant on notice of any defectin the Codicil.
Nothingin the Application or the AmendedApplication gives any notice that the
Codicil deficient;therefore,the Courl erredin not admitting the Codicil to
probate.
POINT F ERROR NOS. SEVEN. EIGHT AND NINE
THE E ECUTORBREACHEDHIS FIDUCIARYDUTY TOWARDDEVISEES
L|NDE TI-{ECODICIL,
'fHE
E ECUTORCOMMITTEDFRAUDON THE COURTAND ON THE CODICIL
BENEF IAR.IES.
THE BREACHEDDUTY OF ORDINARYCARETO THE
BENEFCIARIESOF THE CODICIL.
a claimfor breachof a fiduciaryduty,there
enerally,for a partyto establish
must ex a fiduciary relationship betweenthe plaintiff and defendant,the defendant
must ha breachedits fiduciary duty to the plaintiff, and the defendant'sbreachmust
resulti injury to the plaintiff"or benefitto the defendant.SeeBurrow v. Arqe, 997
s.w.2d 9 I 7 S.W.2d 924,934-35 (Tex.
v. Guenther,
, 238-39(Tex.1999);Hawthorne
App.- ont 1996,writ denied).
is one that
e relationshipbetweenan executorandthe estate'sbeneficiaries
glves 11 to a fiduciaryduty as a matterof law. Huie v. DeShazo,9225.W,2d920,923
fiduciarydutyto the estate's
(Tex.1 ). An executor's arisesfrom the
beneficiaries
t0
execut s stafirsas trusteeof the property of the estate.HumaneSoc'y v. Austin Nat'l
Bank,5 1 S.W.2d 514,571(Tex.1975).Underthe EstatesCode,a decedent's
estate
andheirsat law ofthe estate,subjectto
legatees,
ly vestsin the devisees,
payme o f th ed e ce d e ndt's TEX.ESTATES
e b ts. 101.003,
CODE$ 101.001, 101.05 1.
Theex tor thusholdsthe estatein trustfor thebenefitof thosewho haveacquireda
vested ht to the decedent'spropertyunderthe will. Seeid.
fiduciary dutiesowed to the beneficiariesof an estateby an independent
executo include a duty of full disclosureof all matelial factsknown to the executorthat
'ect
might a rights.Montgomeryv. Kennedy,669 S.W.2d309, 313
the beneficiaries'
(Tex.l ) (trusteesof trust and executorsof estatehad fiduciary duty of full disclosure
to bene ciary);seeHuie, 922 S.W.2dat923. A fiduciaryalso "owesits principala high
duty of faith, fair dealing,honestperformance,and strict accountability."Ludlow v.
De , 959S.W.2d265,279 [14thDist.]1997,nowrit)'Whena.n
(Tex.App.-Houston
indepen nt executortakesthe oath and qualifiesin that capacity,he or sheassumesall
duties a fidrrciaryas a matterof law. HumaneSoc'y,531 S.W.2dX 5ll; Geeslinv.
McEl , 788S.W.2d683,686-87(Tex.App.-Arlstin1990,no writ).
fiduciary relationshipexistedbetweenthe independentexecutorand Appellant
asa ficiary underthe Codicil, which includedvariousduties,includingthe duty to
refrain commingling of funds and the duty to discloseall materialfacts.However,it
is axio ic thatWilson
s statedabove.the Executor'sduties fuli disclosureof all materialfactsknown
to the eeutorthat might affect the beneficiaries'rights. There is nothing in the recordto
1l
disclosure. The elementsof actionablefraud are: (1) thatamaterial
ion was made; (2) that it was false; (3) that when the speakermade it he knew
seor madeit recklesslywithoutanyknowledgeof thetruth andasa positive
; (4) thathe madeit with the intentionthatit shouldbe acteduponby theparty;
(5) that party actedin relianceupon it; (6) that he therebysufferedinjury. Stonev.
., 554S.W.2d183,185(Tex.l97l); OilwellDivision.United
d 487(Tex.l973);
tionv. Frver,493S.W.2 45
Wilsonv. Jones,
s.w.2d72 (1'ex.Com.App. | 932,holding approved).When the alleged fraud arises
because f a failure to disclosefacts,a duty, becauseof either a confidentialor fiduciar1,
relati ip. to disclosethosefacts must exist in orderto make such failure actionableas
fraud. .,531S.W .2d55,61( Tex.Civ.App.- Cor p us
S.W.2dl83, 185(Tex.1917);Moore&
Christi 976),rev'don othergrounds,554
v. White,345S.W.2d550(Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas
1961,writ
Co.v. DanielMotorCo.,I49S.W.2d979(Tex.Civ.
refd n.r .);PhillipsPetroleum
App.-- tland 1941,writ dism'djudgm't cor.). The Executorconcealedmaterialfacts
from A lant Gomez as beneficiaryunderthe Codicil and committedfraud.
Negli is the breachof the duty of ordinary carewhich causesa Plaintiff damages.
., 751F3d614 6tnCir.). Thereis nothingin therecordto
demons the ordinary care,if any, the Executorexercisedin this casetoward the
benefici underthe Codicil. The Executoris liablefor breachof fiduciaryduty,
fraud, negligencetoward the beneficiariesunderthe Codicil, and the Order
Admitti Will to Probateshouldbe reversedand remandedfor fuither proceedings.
I2
F'ERROR NO. TEN
THE AL COURTERREDBY NOTREQUIRING APPELLEETO
LINDERTHE CODICILAS
JOIN E AT'PELLANTAND OTHERBENEFICIARIES
NECES ARYPARTIES.
ppellant and the other beneficiariesand legateesunderthe codicil were denied
theirri ts to due Drocessunder the 14tl'amendmentto the U.S. Constitutionand
Amend l9 to the TexasConstitution. A party to a suit shouldjoin all claims that
are com ry. Ingersoll-RandCo. v. Valero EnergyCorp.,997 S.W.2d203,207 (Tex,
leee). claim is compulsoryif it meetsthe following criteria;
1) Id.
The claim must be within the court'ssubject-matter.iurisdiction.
Appell t's claim is for money in the estateof the Decedent
) The claimmustnot bependingasa suit in anothercourt. Id. Appellant
hasnot ht to collectthe moneydue underthe codicil in anothercourt.
) The claim must be maturedand ownedby the pleaderwhen he files his
appeara . !!. Thetestamentary to Appellantmaturedat Mr.
gift from Decedent
Bernal' deathand is owned by the Appellant.
) The claim must arisefrom the sametransactionor occurrence.Id. The
claim ar sesfrom the only codicil to the will of Decedent.
) The claim must be againstthe opposingparty in the samecapacityin
party filed his claim. Id. Appellant was a friend and caregiverto the
All parliesmust be available. Id. Basedon information and belief,
Appell believesthat the additionaldeviseesunderthe codicil are grandchildrenor
otherre tives of the Decedent. l'he claim of Appellant and the other beneficiariesunder
the Cod il rreet all the requirementsof the Ingersollcase. The trial court, therefore,
comml reversibleerror by not requiring that the additionalpartiesbe joined in the
litigatio . If the other deviseesare minors, the Trial Court should appoint an attorneyad
litem fo them.
1 a
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
HEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant requeststhat the Court
reverse judgmentadmittingthe Will but not theCodicilto Probate,andfor suchother
andfurt er relief to which Appellant may show himselfjustly entitled.
Respectfullysubmitted,
ReedGreene,MPA, JD
26254IH10West,Suite135
Boerne,Texas78006
Tel:(210)826-1233
Fax:(210)463-9241
By: /S/
ReedGreene
StareBarNo. 08390970
Attorneyfor Appellant
JerryH. Kagan
TexasBarNo. 24008963
1600CulebraAve.
SanAntonio,Texas 7820I
Attorneyfor Appellant
I4