Qiong-Ying Duang Chang, Incapacitated v. Qingha Julia Liu, as Administrator of the Estate of Hsiangpin Michael Chang ( 2022 )

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed November 23, 2022
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-00977-CV
QIONG-YING DUANG CHANG, INCAPACITATED, Appellant
V.
QINGHA JULIA LIU, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF
HSIANGPIN MICHAEL CHANG, Appellee
On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-17914
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Molberg, and Pedersen, III
Opinion by Justice Molberg
In this property dispute, appellant Qiong-Ying Duang Chang appeals a final
judgment in favor of appellee Qingha Julia Liu,1 as administrator of the estate of
Hsiangpin Michael Chang (H.M.C.), Chang’s son, who is now deceased. Chang
argues the trial court erred by (1) awarding attorneys’ fees to Liu; (2) granting
summary judgment on Liu’s declaratory judgment claim and declaring the existence
of a purchase money resulting trust in the disputed property; and (3) striking certain
1
We refer to Liu in her capacity as administrator of H.M.C.’s estate unless otherwise noted.
evidence submitted with Chang’s motion to reconsider summary judgment. We
affirm the judgment in this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts are well known to the parties, and we do not detail them except as
necessary to explain the basic reasons for our decision. Id.
In November 2019, Liu, as administrator of H.M.C.’s estate, sued Peter J.
Bennett2 in his then-capacity as the temporary guardian of Chang’s person and
estate, asserting claims for declaratory judgment, suit to quiet title, and trespass to
try title in connection with a residential property purchased by H.M.C. in Chang’s
name using funds from H.M.C. Attached to Liu’s original petition were two
exhibits: (1) a general warranty deed for the property signed on January 17, 2017,
and recorded two days later, which identified Chang as grantor and Liu as grantee,
and (2) an original petition and application for temporary injunction that Bennett, as
Chang’s then-guardian, filed against Liu in her personal capacity in Harris County
in September 2019, approximately two months earlier.
The Harris County petition alleged, in part, that Chang is incapacitated and
has suffered from late-stage Alzheimer’s disease and progressive memory loss since
at least 2010. In the Harris County lawsuit, Bennett asserted claims against Liu for
breach of fiduciary duty, civil theft, conversion, and unjust enrichment, and sought
2
We refer to Bennett in his capacity as Temporary Guardian of Chang unless otherwise noted.
–2–
a temporary injunction, appointment of a receiver, and other relief.3 While the Harris
County lawsuit appears to involve multiple types of assets, including financial
accounts, real property, and company interests, the lawsuit in this case involves only
a single Dallas County property.
In the original petition in this case, Liu, as administrator of H.M.C.’s estate,
alleged, in part:
Since the Dallas County Property was purchased in January 2012, and
[Chang] has been allegedly incapacitated since at least 2010, [Chang]
was unable to transfer the Dallas County Property as mentioned
above.[4] But regardless of [Chang’s] capacity, since the Dallas County
Property was not a gift, the Dallas County Property was not hers to
transfer since [H.M.C.] (and now his estate) has held a purchase money
resulting trust in the Dallas County Property since its purchase . . . .
3
The Harris County lawsuit is styled Peter J. Bennett, Temporary Guardian of the Person and Estate
of Qiong-Ying Duang Chang, an Incapacitated Person v. Qinghua “Julia” Liu, Cause No. 468,149-401 in
Probate Court No. 1, Harris County, Texas. As indicated by the case style, the Harris County lawsuit was
brought against Liu in her personal capacity, not in her capacity as administrator for H.M.C.’s estate. The
original petition in the Harris County lawsuit stated, “The subject matter in controversy is proper under
section 32.001(a) of the Texas Estates Code because the probate court exercised original probate
jurisdiction and had jurisdiction over matters related to the original proceeding brought by the personal
representative of the estate.” It is not clear what is meant by the “original proceeding” phrase or whose
“estate” is being referred to in that quoted statement. It is also not clear whether the Harris County lawsuit
remains pending or has concluded. What is clear, however, are the parties’ views regarding the basis for
venue in the two cases. In the Harris County lawsuit, Bennett, as Chang’s then-guardian, alleged “[v]enue
is proper because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [the] lawsuit occurred in
[Harris] County. In this lawsuit, Liu, as administrator of H.M.C.’s estate, alleged “[v]enue is mandatory in
Dallas County, Texas under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.011 because the real property at
issue is located in Dallas County, Texas.”
4
This appears to refer to two transfers Liu alleges occurred with regard to the property at issue here: a
transfer noted in a November 17, 2016 “Property Ownership Transfer Agreement” executed by H.M.C. and
Chang in which Chang “agree[d] to transfer [the] property . . . to [H.M.C./Liu] without requirement of
payment in any form” and a transfer through a January 17, 2017 General Warranty Deed identifying Chang
as grantor and Liu as grantee.
–3–
Thus, the heart of the parties’ present dispute is whether H.M.C. (and now his
estate) had a purchase money resulting trust in the property at the time he purchased
it in Chang’s name.
A few weeks after Bennett answered the original petition in this case, Liu filed
a traditional motion for summary judgment on “all of Plaintiff’s claims.” In that
motion, Liu argued H.M.C.’s estate had superior title to Chang in the property
because H.M.C. did not have a donative intent to gift the property to Chang and had
a purchase money resulting trust when he purchased it. Liu asked the court to grant
summary judgment on the declaratory judgment and trespass to try title claims;
declare that H.M.C.’s estate has a purchase money resulting trust on the property;
find that H.M.C.’s estate has superior title to Bennett in his capacity as temporary
guardian of Chang’s person and estate; and award costs of suit, including reasonable
costs and attorneys’ fees. Attached to the summary judgment motion were two
affidavits and documents referred to in the affidavits.
Bennett responded in opposition to the summary judgment motion and did not
object to Liu’s evidence. Bennett attached various exhibits to the summary
judgment response without any accompanying affidavit or declaration. Liu filed a
reply, objecting to and moving to strike all of Chang’s summary judgment evidence.
The trial court heard and granted Liu’s traditional summary judgment motion
on the declaratory judgment claim on February 20, 2020. The summary judgment
order declared, in part, that “Bennett, in his capacity as Temporary Guardian of the
–4–
Person and Estate of [Chang] has no interest, title, or right to” the property, that
“Plaintiff’s rights to the [property] are superior to Defendant’s rights, if any[,]” and
that “Plaintiff has a purchase money resulting trust in the [property].”
In May 2020, Bennett filed a verified amended answer stating he did not have
the legal capacity to be sued because he was no longer Chang’s temporary guardian
and no other person had been appointed.
In response, Liu filed a second amended petition naming Chang as the
defendant, obtained citation, and effected service upon Chang. Shortly thereafter,
Chang answered, stating she is incapacitated and was filing the answer by and
through her next friend, Li Chang, her daughter. The answer was signed by counsel,
generally denied Liu’s claims, and asserted various affirmative defenses.
A little over a month later, Chang filed a motion to reconsider the court’s
earlier summary judgment ruling on the declaratory judgment claim.
Five days later, Chang filed an appendix to accompany the motion to
reconsider. While the appendix contained some items that had been included with
the prior summary judgment response Bennett filed on her behalf, the appendix also
contained or referred to new evidence that had not been included in the prior
summary judgment response, including two new affidavits and various documents
purporting to be the following: documents from Chang’s guardianship proceedings;
documents from divorce proceedings between H.M.C. and an ex-wife, Vicky Chang;
–5–
documents from the Internal Revenue Service and a bank; interrogatory answers;5
and various emails.
Liu responded in opposition to the motion to reconsider and objected to all of
Chang’s evidence on the grounds it was untimely and Chang had not obtained leave
of court to file it. Alternatively, Liu also objected to most of Chang’s evidence on
substantive grounds, including that it constituted hearsay, and had not been properly
authenticated.
In the meantime, Liu also moved for entry of final judgment against Chang,
which Chang opposed. Liu attached to that motion an affidavit and various records
regarding Liu’s request for attorneys’ fees of $65,272.00 and costs of $715.17 under
civil practice and remedies code chapter 37. Chang responded in opposition to that
motion but did not object to Liu’s evidence, attach any evidence of her own, or make
any arguments regarding Liu’s inability to recover fees or costs.
Ultimately, the trial court sustained Liu’s objections to Chang’s new evidence,
denied Chang’s motion to reconsider the summary judgment ruling, granted Liu’s
motion for entry of final judgment against Chang, and entered a final judgment in
Liu’s favor. The final judgment stated, in part:
FINAL JUDGMENT shall be entered in favor of [Liu, as administrator
of H.M.C.’s estate], in the amount of $65,987.17 in attorneys’ fees and
costs incurred in bringing this action. It is further,
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
5
The appendix referred to interrogatory answers in its summary of contents but did not contain them.
–6–
a. That [Chang] has no interest, title or right to the Dallas County
Property.
b. That [Chang’s] rights, if any exist, to the Dallas County Property are
inferior to [Liu’s] rights, in her capacity as administrator of [H.M.C.’s]
Estate.
c. That [Liu’s] rights to the Dallas County Property are superior to
[Chang’s] rights, if any.
d. That [Liu, as administrator of H.M.C.’s estate,] has a purchase money
resulting trust in the Dallas County Property.
....
This is a final, appealable order that disposes of all claims and causes
of action between [Liu, as administrator of H.M.C.’s estate] and
[Chang] in this matter.
Chang filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled by operation of law,
and timely appealed.
II. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In three issues, Chang argues, in essence,6 the trial court erred by (1) awarding
attorneys’ fees to Liu; (2) granting summary judgment on Liu’s declaratory
judgment claim and declaring the existence of a purchase money resulting trust in
6
In her appellate brief, Chang states the issues as follows:
1. Are attorney fees recoverable by a party seeking a declaratory judgment as to the
existence of a purchase money resulting trust or for parties seeking relief for trespass to try
title?
2. Given the evidence of [Chang’s] inability to take care of herself and [H.M.C.’s]
acknowledgment of debts owed to her, his failure, over the course of five years, to change
the ownership of the property, did the Trial Court err in granting summary judgment as to
the existence of a purchase money resulting trust?
3. Did the trial court err in striking probative evidence filed in response to the motion for
judgment?
–7–
the disputed property; and (3) striking certain evidence submitted with Chang’s
motion to reconsider summary judgment on Liu’s declaratory judgment claim.7 We
consider these issues in reverse order.
A. Striking of Chang’s New Evidence
We first consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in striking the
evidence Chang presented with her motion to reconsider summary judgment on
Liu’s declaratory judgment claim.
The decision whether to admit or exclude evidence is committed to the sound
discretion of the trial court. City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750, 753
(Tex. 1995). “A trial court’s evidentiary ruling must be upheld if there is a legitimate
basis for it.” May v. Buck, 375 S.W.3d 568, 573–74 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no
pet.) (citing Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, 43 (Tex.
1998)). Even if the exclusion or admission of evidence is found to be an abuse of
discretion, it does not warrant reversal unless the error probably caused the rendition
of an improper judgment. See id.On appeal, Chang equates her motion to reconsider to a motion for new trial
and, while citing standards that apply in that context8 but without citing to the record
7
Although Chang refers in her third issue to the “striking [of] probative evidence filed in response to
the motion for judgment,” we construe this issue as referring to the striking of the evidence filed in
connection with her motion to reconsider summary judgment because (1) the court’s order striking Chang’s
evidence refers to the evidence Chang submitted in connection with her motion to reconsider, and (2) Chang
presented no evidence with her response in opposition to Liu’s motion for judgment.
8
See Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796, 813 (Tex. 2010) (a trial court’s denial of a motion
for new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion; party seeking a new trial on grounds of newly discovered
–8–
or applying any authority to support her argument, she argues that excluding her
evidence results in a “shockingly unfair result – a manifest injustice – given the facts
submitted” to the trial court when, because of her incapacity, “all evidence is
unavailable to [her], and relatively unavailable to her representatives because of her
inability to help them.” Although Liu disagrees with Chang’s conclusion, like
Chang, Liu also cites the standards that apply in the context of motion for new trial.
Even if we assume Chang’s briefing on this issue is sufficient9 and assume the
parties have cited the correct standard,10 we cannot conclude from the record before
us that the trial court abused its discretion in striking the evidence. In the hearing on
Chang’s motion to reconsider and on Liu’s motion to strike Chang’s evidence, the
following exchange occurred:
[THE COURT]: Before you proceed . . . will you expound on your
contention that Mr. Bennett did not have access to these documents.
[CHANG’s COUNSEL]: Well, okay. Mr. Bennett was temporary
guardian. He had complete authority over the case. His client is
somebody who has dementia and is clearly incapacitated, so her ability
to aid him [sic].
evidence must demonstrate: (1) the evidence has come to his or her knowledge since the trial, (2) the failure
to discover the evidence sooner was not due to a lack of diligence, (3) the evidence is not cumulative, and
(4) the evidence is so material it would probably produce a different result if a new trial were granted).
9
See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (“The brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions
made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.”); Horton v. Stovall, 591 S.W.3d 567, 569
(Tex. 2019) (per curiam) (appellate courts are required to reasonably but liberally construe the briefing
rules to avoid waiver of appellate review).
10
On Chang’s third issue, both parties refer to the standards for submission of new evidence in
connection with motions for new trial. Because no dispute exists in this regard, we assume but do not
decide this standard applies here. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (“If the issues are settled, the court should write
a brief memorandum opinion no longer than necessary to advise the parties of the court’s decision and the
basic reasons for it.”).
–9–
He had access to some documents which were, apparently, some of the
ones that he produced in response to the motion for summary judgment,
but he did not consult with us.
We had been involved in the guardianship proceeding in Houston, and
we were not fully aware of what was going on in this particular case
and the case in Galveston.
THE COURT: But the documents did exist at the time.
[CHANG’s COUNSEL]: Yes. Yeah. Most of the documents did exist
at the time, yes, as I look at the list of them.
We overrule Chang’s third issue.
B. Summary Judgment Declaring Purchase Money Resulting Trust
In her second issue, Chang argues the trial court erred in granting summary
judgment and declaring the existence of a purchase money resulting trust by Liu
because the evidence was not clear and convincing enough to conclusively overcome
the presumption of a gift to her, as H.M.C.’s mother.
1. Standard of Review
We review a declaratory judgment rendered by summary judgment under the
same standards that govern summary judgments generally. Aery v. Hoskins, Inc.,
493 S.W.3d 684, 690–91 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. denied) (citations
omitted). As our sister court noted, “[d]eclaratory judgment is not an appropriate
remedy to resolve a purely factual dispute[,]” and “a plaintiff who moves for
summary judgment on a claim for declaratory relief must conclusively prove no
genuine issue of material fact exists, and it is entitled to the requested declaratory
relief as a matter of law.” Id. at 691.
–10–
“We review summary judgments de novo, taking as true all evidence
favorable to the nonmovant, and indulging every reasonable inference and resolving
any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor.” Energen Res. Corp. v. Wallace, 642 S.W.3d
502, 509 (Tex. 2022). When a plaintiff moves for traditional summary judgment, it
has the burden to conclusively establish all elements of its claim. Affordable Motor
Co. v. LNA, LLC, 351 S.W.3d 515, 519 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. denied). A
matter is conclusively established if the evidence leaves “no room for ordinary minds
to differ as to the conclusion to be drawn from it.” Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Lufkin
Indus., LLC, 573 S.W.3d 224, 235 (Tex. 2019). If the movant satisfies its burden,
the burden shifts to the nonmovant to raise a genuine issue of material fact
precluding summary judgment. Lujan v. Navistar, Inc., 555 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex.
2018). But the burden does not shift if the movant does not establish his burden as
a matter of law. See Jose Fuentes Co. v. Alfaro, 418 S.W.3d 280, 287 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2013, pet. denied).
“A trial court may change or modify a partial summary judgment at any time
before its plenary power expires because it is an interlocutory order.” Heatley v. Red
Oak 86, L.P., 629 S.W.3d 377, 394–95 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.) (quoting
Fabio v. Ertel, 226 S.W.3d 557, 560, 563 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no
pet.)); see Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Walker, 451 S.W.3d 490, 504 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2014, no pet.) (“[A] trial court has the inherent right to change or modify any
interlocutory order or judgment until the judgment on the merits of the case becomes
–11–
final.”) (citations omitted). But, once a trial court rules on a partial motion for
summary judgment, no obligation exists for the trial court to consider further
motions on that issue from either party. See Methodist Hosps. of Dall. v. Corporate
Communicators, Inc., 806 S.W.2d 879, 883 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. denied)
(“Once the trial court granted . . . summary judgment as to liability, no obligation
existed for it to consider further motions on that issue from either party.”).
When a motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed after a summary
judgment motion is heard and ruled upon, the trial court may ordinarily consider
only the record as it existed before hearing the motion for the first time. See Circle
X Land & Cattle Co. v. Mumford Ind. Sch. Dist., 325 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied).11 But a trial court may accept summary
judgment evidence filed late, even after summary judgment, as long as the court
affirmatively indicates in the record that it accepted or considered it. Stephens v.
Dolcefino, 126 S.W.3d 120, 133 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied)
(citations omitted). Where the trial court affirmatively indicates on the record that
it accepted or considered the evidence attached to a motion to reconsider, this court
reviews “the summary judgment based upon the grounds and proof in both
11
However, in another context involving reconsideration of a denial of a motion for summary judgment,
we concluded a trial court properly considered, as summary judgment evidence, information filed more
than seven days before a hearing on a motion to reconsider the trial court’s denial of summary judgment,
even though such information was not on file at the time of the original summary judgment hearing. Lection
v. Dyll, 65 S.W.3d 696, 703 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied).
–12–
prejudgment and post-judgment filings.” PNP Petroleum I, LP v. Taylor, 438
S.W.3d 723, 730 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, pet. denied).
Here, the record contains no affirmative indication that the trial court accepted
or considered the evidence Chang submitted with her motion to reconsider, and, in
fact, the record affirmatively indicates the trial court did not do so.12 As a result, we
limit our review to the evidence presented in the initial summary judgment
proceedings. See PNP Petroleum I, LP, 438 S.W.3d at 730; Circle X Land & Cattle
Co., 325 S.W.3d at 863.
2. Summary Judgment Evidence
Both parties submitted evidence to accompany their filings in the initial
summary judgment proceedings. Liu attached to her summary judgment motion her
own affidavit, an outgoing wire transfer request for payment of the purchase price
of the property, electric bills for the property, a Mattress Firm invoice, an affidavit
from Dong Wu, a real estate agent, and email correspondence between Mr. Wu and
H.M.C.
Bennett attached various documents to the summary judgment response,
including documents purporting to be the following: three letters appearing to be
from Chang and another person to H.M.C. in January 2014; a residential
condominium contract for the property signed by Chang on December 16, 2011; a
12
The order striking Chang’s evidence states, in part, “The Court ORDERS that all of the evidence
submitted with [Chang’s] Motion to Reconsider the Partial Summary Judgment shall be stricken and not
considered as part of the summary judgment record.”
–13–
December 22, 2011 special warranty deed for the property identifying Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation as the grantor and Chang as the grantee; an unrecorded
November 17, 2016 “property ownership transfer agreement” purportedly signed by
Chang and H.M.C. and referring, in part, to the property; and the same January 17,
2017 general warranty deed Liu and Chang both attached to their original petitions
in this and the Harris County case. Chang did not submit any affidavit or declaration
authenticating any of these documents.
Liu filed a reply and objected to and moved to strike all of Chang’s evidence
on the grounds that it constituted hearsay and constituted improper summary
judgment evidence. Also, with the exception of the “property ownership transfer
agreement,” Liu objected to all of these documents on the ground that they were not
authenticated. The record contains no transcript of the summary judgment hearing
and no ruling regarding Liu’s objections.
Objections that a document contains hearsay are defects in form. S & I Mgmt.,
Inc. v. Choi, 331 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.). Defects in
form cannot be raised on appeal unless the party obtains a written ruling on these
objections. Id. An objection to the attempted authentication of a document is usually
considered a defect in form; however, we have held that “[a] complete absence of
authentication is a defect of substance that is not waived by a party failing to object
and may be urged for the first time on appeal.” Blanche v. First Nationwide Mortg.
Corp., 74 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, no pet.). A party submitting
–14–
documents as summary judgment proof bears the burden of authenticating them. Id.(“We conclude [appellants] had the burden of authenticating the documents they
submitted as summary judgment proof.”).
Here, Bennett—as Chang’s temporary guardian at the time—had the burden
of authenticating the documents he submitted as summary judgment proof on her
behalf but made no attempt to do so. While we will not consider Liu’s hearsay
objections because she failed to obtain a written ruling, Bennett’s complete lack of
any attempt to authenticate the documents attached to the summary judgment
response is a defect in substance we may consider. See id. Thus, in reviewing the
trial court’s summary judgment ruling, we do not consider the documents attached
to the response Bennett filed on behalf of Chang because he made no attempt to
authenticate them.
3. Purchase Money Resulting Trusts
In Somer v. Bogart, 749 S.W.2d 202, 204 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, no writ),
we stated, in part, “A purchase money resulting trust may be established where one
takes a deed to property in his own name, but the purchase money is provided by
another.” We noted that, “[a]lthough a resulting trust may be clearly shown by proof
that the purchase price was paid by another, there is an exception to this rule when
parents pay the purchase price for property and place title in the name of their child.
In this situation a presumption of gift arises, and no resulting trust exists until the
presumption is rebutted.” Id. (citations omitted).
–15–
In Somer, we considered whether the presumption of gift arises in
circumstances where title is taken in the name of a son-in-law. Id. At the time, the
question appeared to be one of first impression in this state, and in deciding it in the
affirmative, we adopted the rule found in the Restatement of the Law of Trusts
(Second) § 442, which states:
Where a transfer of property is made by one person and the purchase
price is paid by another and the transferee is a wife, child or other
natural object of bounty of the person by whom the purchase price is
paid, a resulting trust does not arise unless the latter manifests an
intention that the transferee should not have the beneficial interest in
the property.
Id. (emphasis supplied). We stated, “In a transfer of the above type, we perceive no
reason why under normal circumstances a son-in-law should not be treated as the
natural object of his father-in-law’s bounty so as to take by gift.” Id. (citing
RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF TRUSTS (SECOND) § 442, Comment b). Thus, we held
in Somer “that a transfer of property between a father-in-law as payor and a son-in-
law as grantee is one in which a presumption of gift arises.” Id.
Here, it is undisputed that H.M.C., Chang’s son, paid the purchase price for
the property and placed title in Chang’s name.13 Because of H.M.C. and Chang’s
relationship as son and mother, Chang argues that the presumption of gift arises in
this case.
13
In its statement of facts, Chang’s appellate brief states, H.M.C. “paid for the purchase of [the
property] and put title of the property in [Chang’s] name[.]”
–16–
We disagree, however. In Oudra v. Stegall, 871 S.W.2d 882 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ), our sister court stated:
A party claiming a gift has the burden to prove it. Pankhurst v.
Weitinger & Tucker, 850 S.W.2d 726, 730 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi[–Edinburg] 1993, writ denied); Powell v. Powell, 822 S.W.2d
181, 183 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied). Since
[appellant] was the party claiming that the funds in the accounts were
“gifts” . . . to her, she had to prove this claim by clear and convincing
evidence. In her brief she argues that there was a legal presumption of
gift and that appellees had the burden to rebut that presumption by clear
and convincing evidence. We disagree. A presumption of gift arises if
a parent delivers possession, conveys title, or purchases property in the
name of a child. Woodworth, 660 S.W.2d at 564 (citing Burk v. Turner,
79 Tex. 276, 15 S.W. 256, 257 (1891)). We have found no cases where
the presumption arises when a child does the same for a parent.
Id. at 891 (emphasis added).
None of the parties’ cited cases involve the circumstances presented here. We
have found no binding cases finding the presumption of a gift arises when a child
delivers possession, conveys title, or purchases property in the name of a parent. In
fact, “[t]he predominant view . . . does not support the inference of gift . . .where the
transferee is a parent of the payor. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TRUSTS § 9 (2003)
(comments b and c) (citing Dallas v. Dallas, 670 S.W.2d 535 (Mo. App. 1984);
Gragg v. Gragg, 94 N.C.App. 134, 379 S.E.2d 684 (1989); and Unterkircher v.
Unterkircher, 183 Or. 583, 195 P.2d 178 (1948)); see Ronald Chester, George
Gleason Bogert, George Taylor Bogert, Amy Morris Hess, BOGERT’S THE LAW OF
TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES § 460 n.26 (June 2022) (“Where a child pays for property
and vests title in a parent, the courts have presumed a trust for the child and not a
–17–
gift to the parent.”) (listing cases); Haynes v. Molina, No. 01-19-00917-CV, 2021
WL 4155822, at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston Sept. 14, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
(stating, with respect to a son who claimed a purchase money resulting trust in a
disputed property, “By providing the down payment, a purchase money resulting
trust was created at the time that his parents took legal title to the house.”).14
Thus, in accordance with the above authorities, and based on the undisputed
fact that H.M.C., Chang’s son, paid the purchase price for the property and placed
title in Chang’s name, the purchase created a presumption of a resulting trust for
H.M.C., not a presumption of a gift to Chang. As the party claiming the property
was a gift, Chang had the burden at trial to prove by clear and convincing evidence
at trial the property was a gift. See Oadra, 871 S.W.2d at 891.
But while Chang had this burden at trial, we do not apply a heightened
standard in our review of a summary judgment. See Hardy v. Bennefield, 368
S.W.3d 643, 648 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, no pet.) (citing Huckabee v. Time Warner
Entm’t Co., 19 S.W.3d 413, 421–23 (Tex. 2000) (stating, “When viewed narrowly,
14
But see In re Lee, No. 18-42066, 2021 WL 5893991, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2021) (“find[ing] that
the preponderance of the credible evidence establishes that the down payment for the [disputed property]
was a gift to the [d]ebtor’s parents, who had been living with them for several years while helping to care
for their children and manage their household [and who] had closed their business at the [d]ebtor’s request
and were financially dependent on the [d]ebtor and his spouse.”); Amador v. Berrospe, 961 S.W.2d 205,
207 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. denied) (stating, “Although a resulting trust may be shown
by proof that another paid the purchase price, there is an exception to this rule when parents pay the purchase
price for the property and place title in the name of their child, and vice-versa.”) (citations omitted). Given
the “predominant view” discussed in the Restatement (Third) of Trusts as cited above, as well as the Oadra
and Haynes decisions discussed above, to the extent that Lee and Amador contradict our conclusion on
Chang’s second issue, we decline to follow them.
–18–
the express holding in Huckabee applies only to defamation cases [but] “the Texas
Supreme Court impliedly signaled that when a heightened standard of proof is
required at trial, we nevertheless ordinarily apply the traditional standard when
reviewing an order granting summary judgment.”).
4. Conclusion on H.M.C.’s Purchase Money Resulting Trust
Thus, to resolve Chang’s second issue, we must consider whether Liu
conclusively established all elements15 of her declaratory judgment claim, see
Affordable Motor Co., 351 S.W.3d at 519, and if so, whether Chang raised a genuine
issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. See Lujan, 555 S.W.3d at 84.
A matter is conclusively established if the evidence leaves “no room for ordinary
minds to differ as to the conclusion to be drawn from it.” Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
573 S.W.3d at 235.
Here, Liu sought, and the trial court granted, a declaration stating, among
other things, that H.M.C.’s estate has a purchase money resulting trust in the
property. With her motion, Liu presented an affidavit stating, in part, that H.M.C.
“purchased the [property and] paid for the [property] with his funds via a wire
transfer out of his Wells Fargo bank account” and referring to a Wells Fargo
15
See Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Lynch, 595 S.W.3d 678, 685 (Tex. 2020) (“[A] declaratory judgment is
appropriate only if a justiciable controversy exists as to the rights and status of the parties and the
controversy will be resolved by the declaration sought.”) (quoting Bonham State Bank v. Beadle, 907
S.W.2d 465, 467 (Tex. 1995)); Brooks v. Northglen Ass’n, 141 S.W.3d 158, 163–64 (Tex. 2004) (“A
declaratory judgment requires a justiciable controversy as to the rights and status of parties actually before
the court for adjudication, and the declaration sought must actually resolve the controversy.”).
–19–
outgoing wire transfer request dated January 6, 2012, in the amount of $139,955.81
from H.M.C.’s account to Republic Title of Texas, Inc.
Although Chang does not dispute on appeal that H.M.C. “paid for the
purchase of [the property] and put title of the property in [Chang’s] name[,]” in the
trial court, Chang argued a genuine issue of material fact existed on Liu’s claim that
H.M.C. had a purchase money resulting trust because the funds used to purchase the
property came from his funds. Her response stated, in part:
22. [Liu] also claims that [H.M.C.]’s Estate is entitled to a purchase
money resulting trust because she alleges that the funds used to
purchase the [property] came from [H.M.C.]’s funds.
23. A genuine issue of material fact exists because the [property] was
purchased in December of 2011—during the time that [H.M.C.] and
Vicky were married. During the pendency of their divorce, Vicky filed
a counterclaim against [H.M.C.] claiming that he was defrauding the
community estate by purchasing and placing title to real property in
[H.M.C.]’s parents[‘] name[s]. Ultimately, certain real property was
required to be conveyed to Vicky from [H.M.C.]’s parents. However,
the [property] was never adjudicated as part of the community estate.
No evidence was cited in this portion of the response Bennett filed on behalf
of Chang, and none of the five documents attached to the motion were authenticated.
Even if they had been authenticated, none of those five documents appear to contain
any information supporting Chang’s assertions as listed above.
Based on the record before us, we conclude Liu conclusively established the
elements of her declaratory judgment claim and that H.M.C. paid the purchase price
for the property and placed title in Chang’s name. Although the parties disagree
about the legal presumptions that arise under the circumstances, we conclude these
–20–
facts created a presumption of a resulting trust for H.M.C. See RESTATEMENT
(THIRD) OF TRUSTS § 9 (2003) (comments b and c); Chester, et al., BOGERT’S THE
LAW OF TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES § 460 n.26; Haynes, 2021 WL 4155822, at *7;
Oudra, 871 S.W.2d at 891. We also conclude Chang failed to raise a genuine issue
of material fact that the purchase was a gift instead.
We overrule Chang’s second issue.
C. Attorneys’ Fees to Liu
In her first issue, Chang argues the trial court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees
to Liu because there is no basis for them as a matter of law, when the purchase money
resulting trust was duplicative of a trespass to try title claim. Liu argues that Chang
failed to preserve error on this issue. We agree with Liu.
In Krabbe v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, 46 S.W.3d 308, 320–21 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo 2001, pet. denied), our sister court held the appellants did not
preserve error on this issue because they did not urge at the trial court level that
appellee should not recover attorneys’ fees because the suit was in essence a suit for
title rather than a declaratory judgment action. Several other sister courts have done
the same, all citing Krabbe. See Crimson Expl., Inc. v. Magnum Producing L.P., 13-
15-00013-CV, 2017 WL 6616740, at *6 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Dec.
28, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. v. Healey, L.P., 12-11-
00236-CV, 2013 WL 1282007, at *4 (Tex. App.—Tyler Mar. 28, 2013, pet. denied)
(mem. op.); Buckingham v. McAfee, 393 S.W.3d 372, 375–76 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
–21–
2012, pet. denied); Vernon v. Perrien, 390 S.W.3d 47, 62 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012,
pet. denied).
We reach the same conclusion here because Chang failed to argue below that
Liu should not recover attorneys’ fees because the suit was in essence a suit for title
rather than a declaratory judgment action. We overrule Chang’s first issue.
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Ken Molberg/
KEN MOLBERG
JUSTICE
200977F.P05
–22–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
QIONG-YING DUANG CHANG, On Appeal from the 160th Judicial
INCAPACITATED, Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-17914.
No. 05-20-00977-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Molberg. Justices Schenck and
QINGHA JULIA LIU, AS Pedersen, III participating.
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE OF HSIANGPIN
MICHAEL CHANG, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee QINGHA JULIA LIU, AS
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF HSIANGPIN MICHAEL CHANG
recover her costs of this appeal from appellant QIONG-YING DUANG CHANG,
INCAPACITATED.
Judgment entered November 23, 2022.
–23–