Mondee Stracener v. Doug Stracener, Bernice L. Stracener and Joey Keith Stracener

ACCEPTED
06-14-00079-CV
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
4/10/2015 3:08:26 PM
DEBBIE AUTREY
CLERK
DOCKET NO. 06-14-00079-CV
IN THE
FILED IN
6th COURT OF APPEALS
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS
4/10/2015 3:08:26 PM
at Texarkana DEBBIE AUTREY
Clerk
MONDEE STRACENER
Appellant
vs
DOUG STRACENER, BERNICE STRACENER, AND JOEY STRACENER
Appellees
Appealed from the 115th Judicial District Court
of Upshur County, Texas
APPELLEES' BRIEF
David B. Griffith
Texas Bar No. 08479300
Griffith & Griffith Law Firm, P.C.
404 N. Titus Street
P. 0 . Box 864
Gilmer, Texas 75644
Telephone: (903) 843-5005
Facsimile: (903) 843-5392
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
APPELLEES REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT
IDENTITY OF PARTIES & COUNSEL
Appellees:
Doug Stracener, Bernice Stracener, and Joey Stracener
Counsel for Appellees:
Trial and Appellee Counsel:
David B. Griffith
Texas Bar No. 08479300
Griffith & Griffith Law Firm, P.C.
404 N. Titus Street
P. 0. Box 864
Gilmer, Texas 75644
Telephone: (903) 843-5005
Facsimile: (903) 843-5392
Email: davidg@griffithlawfirm.com
Appell ant:
Mondee Stracener
Counsel for Appellant:
Trial and Appellate Counsel:
Robert M. Minton
State Bar No. 14195000
Minton & Brown, PLLC
P. 0. Box 1688
Henderson, Texas 75653
Telephone: (903) 657-3543
Facsimile: (903) 657-3545
Email : mintonbrown@suddenlinkmail .com
Presiding Judge:
The Honorable Richard D. Davis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .. . ........... . . ..... . .. .
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV
ORDER FROM WHICH RELIEF IS SOUGHT .. .......... . . .. ... .. v
ISSUES PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
STATEMENT OF FACTS . .......... . ..... .. .. . .... . . . . ....... 2
ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES .... ...... ...... . ............... 7
STANDARD OF REVIEW ARGUMENT . ... .. ............. .. .... 11
CONCLUSION ...... .. ........................ . .. . .... .... 15
PRAYER ... . ... . . ... . ... ... . ............... . ..... ..... .. 15
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ... .. . .... .. . . .. .... . ... . . .. . 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ... . ........ . ...... . . ... . ........ 17
APPENDIX:
1. Amended Decree Ordering Partition and Appointing
Commissioners
2. Amended Report of Commissioners
3. Final Decree of Partition
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Case Page
Canal Insurance Company v. Hopkins, 238 S.W.3d 549, 557
(Tex. Civ. App.- Tyler 2007,pet denied) 12, 15
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 819-20 (Texas 2005) 12, 15
Edwards v. Mid-Continent Office Distributors, LP,
252 S.W.3d 833 at 836 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 2008, pet denied) 11
Pharro v. Chambers Co. , 922 S.W.2d 945 at 948 (Texas 1996) 12
In Re: W.E.R. 669 S. W . 2d 716, 717 (Texas 1984) 12
iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the Final Decree of Partition (CR-80) rendered
in Cause No. 135-06, styled Mondee Stracener v. Doug Stracener, Bernice
Stracener, and Joey Stracener in the 115th Judicial District Court of Upshur
County, Texas. The suit partitioned a tract of 54.883 acres of land, which
partition was disproportionately owned by the parties. Separate tracts of land
were set aside specifically to Joey Stracener, and that part of the order is not
challenged.
A Report of Commissioners was filed, and upon consideration of
Plaintiff's objections, the Court required the Report of Commissioners to be
amended to place values on the whole and the individual shares partitioned
as well as the value of certain improvements.
The Court thereafter entered its Final Decree of Partition approving the
Amended Report of Commissioners (CR-65) and attached a copy of such
Amended Report to the Final Decree entered on July 11, 2014, and filed July
15, 2014.
iv
ORDER FROM WHICH RELIEF IS SOUGHT
Appellant appeals the Final Decree of Partition (CR-80) signed July 11 ,
2014, and filed of record on July 15, 2014 , approving the Amended Report of
Commissioners (CR-65).
v
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Appellant complains that the Court erred in advising the Special
Commissioners to consider the value of a house which was specifically set
aside to Mondee Stracener. Appellees believe the Court properly rendered
its order based on the proof and stipulations by the parties in earlier
proceedings.
2. Appellant further complains that the Court erred in failing to
instruct the Commissioners to exclude the value of the house from
consideration in amending the Report of Commissioners. Appellees believe
that the Court's order was proper in that the property was set aside to
Mondee Stracener by agreement but was part of the division of the entire
property.
3. The Appellant complains that the Court erred in its Final Decree
of Partition in approving the partition. Appellees believe that the overall
partition was fair and equitable and resulted in a partition complying with the
requirement that the property be equitably partitioned according to value
between the parties.
vi
DOCKET NO. 06-14-00079-CV
IN THE
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
at Texarkana
MONDEE STRACENER
Appellant
vs
DOUG STRACENER, BERNICE STRACENER, AND JOEY STRACENER
Appellees
Appealed from the 115th Judicial District Court
of Upshur County, Texas
APPELLEES' BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS :
Comes now, Doug Stracener, Bernice Stracener and Joey Stracener,
Appellees and Defendants in the Trial Court below, and make and file this
Appellees' Brief in response to Appellant's Brief.
Appellant's Brief requests an improper modification and reversal of the
Trial Court's partition judgment, in that the Appellant is requesting the Court
1
of Appeals to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact. Appellees
request that this Appellate Court deny Appellant's requested relief because
such relief is not proper based upon a fair and equitable partition of the
property nor is it proper under the law.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
This is a suit to partition a tract of land fronting Highway 271 in Upshur
County, Texas . Mondee Stracener filed suit February 21, 2006, seeking to
partition land between himself, Doug Stracener, Bernice Stracener and Joey
Stracener. At trial , which was held May 17, 2010, the parties reached several
agreements which were approved by the trial court as set out in the Amended
Decree Ordering Partition and Appointing Commissioners dated July 26,
2010, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted to the
Appellate Court, as follows, to wit:
"1. The parties stipulated and agreed and the Court finds that
Mondee Stracener, Douglas Stracener and Bernice L. Stracener are the
sole owners of the parcels of land described as: [Extensive property
description redacted].
"2. The parties stipulated and agreed and the Court finds that
Mondee Stracener, Douglas Stracener and Bernice L. Stracener each
2
own an undivided interest in the above described property in fee simple,
which is not subject to any mortgages, liens, or other encumbrances, as
follows :
A. Mondee Stracener- 68.75%
B. Douglas Stracener -15 .625%
C. Bernice Stracener- 15.625%.
"3. The parties stipulated and agreed and the Court finds that the
single-family dwelling and 1 acre is to be Mondee Stracener's sole
property in his own right and that upon partition of the property he is
entitled to have set aside as part of his 68.75% interest that portion of
the property upon which the home is situated.
"4. The parties stipulated and agreed and the Court finds that Joey
Stracener owns a 100% undivided interest in the following parcel of land
and fee simple, which is not subject to any mortgages, liens, or other
encumbrances, and further, the parties convey the below described
property and waive any interest in same:
All that certain one (1) acre of land lying in the Wm . King HR
survey, Abs. No. 265, Upshur County, Texas and being out of the
SE part of the original 70-acre tract owned by Mrs. G. I.
Stracener, and better described in Warranty Deed dated
September 6, 1990 between Grantor: Douglas Stracener and
wife, Mary Ann Stracener and Grantee: Joey Keith Stracener, a
3
single man recorded in the Deed of Records of Upshur County
Vol. 67 Pg . 931 .
"5. The parties stipulated and agreed and the Court finds that the
minerals in the land at issue in this case described in paragraphs one
(1) and three (3) above, remain undivided at this time.
"6 . The parties stipulated and agreed and the Court finds that
Mondee Stracener owns 20 acres of land adjacent to the southwest
corner of the property being partitioned that can be accessed by the
runway on the property being partitioned .
"7 . The parties stipulated and agreed and the Court finds that the
whole of the above described property is susceptible to fair and
equitable partitioning in kind between the parties so as to reflect their
respective interest and equities , and the land will not be partitioned by
lot."
The parties did not reach agreement on other issues, including but not
limited to, the runway issue which was the subject of a prior appeal. The
parties presented such disputed issues to the Trial Court at a hearing in the
form of testimony and evidence . The trial court made findings of fact and
conclusions of law regarding the disputed issues presented at hearing, as set
out in the Amended Decree Ordering Partition and Appointing Commissioners
4
dated July 26, 2010, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
submitted to the appellate court, were as follows , to wit:
"1. The foregoing property should be partitioned between the above
named parties such that the value of the parcels allotted to each party
reflects that party's interest as recited above, and that the above
described single family dwelling and one (1) acre on which the dwelling
rests is awarded to Mondee Stracener, Plaintiff, and that, in addition, his
share of the real property is set aside to include such improvements.
"2. Any contributions claims for taxes, utilities, expenses and
maintenance for the single family dwelling and adjoining one (1) acre
tract and remaining property at issue (not including the runway) are
denied .
"3. Mondee Stracener is entitled to $19,937.50 from the insurance
proceeds as a result of the house located on the property at issue in
this case .
"4. Bernice L. Stracener and Doug Stracener are entitled to the
remaining funds in the Ida May Stracener estate bank account at Gilmer
First National Bank, account number 160025306, after payment of
$19,937.50 to Mondee Stracener.
5
"5. Bernice L. Stracener and Doug Stracener are entitled to the
remaining assets listed in the Inventory, Appraisement and List of
Claims dated March 19, 2004.
"6. Mondee Stracener is not entitled to have the runway located on
the property to be partitioned declared his sole property in his own right
as part of his 68.75% interest in that portion of the property, unless such
award is made as part of subsequent partition proceedings.
"7. Mondee Stracener is not entitled to a unity of use with the twenty
(20) acres he owns adjacent to the property at issue in this case , unless
such award is made as part of subsequent partition proceedings.
"8. Mondee Stracener is not entitled to $25,000.00 as the value of the
runway improvement and that such will not be considered by the
commissioners as a portion of the value of the above described
property."
Thereafter, that order by the Trial Court was appealed to the Twelfth
Court of Appeals in Tyler in Cause No. 12-1 0-00270-CV, styled Mondee
Stracener v. Doug Stracener, Bernice L. Stracener and Joey Keith Stracener.
That Court affirmed the Trial Court's Order on the g th day of November, 2011 ,
and remanded the case for further proceedings.
6
,, .
Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to appoint three special
commissioners , appointed by Amended Decree Ordering Partition and
Appointing Commissioners (CR-17) who filed a Commissioners' Report (CR-
25) on August 9, 2013, partitioning the 54.883 acres into three separate
portions, and which report was deficient in that it failed to assess the value
to the whole of the land.
Objections to the Report were filed, and a hearing was set.
The Court ordered the Special Commissioners to amend their Report
of Commissioners to place value on the whole and values of each share
partitioned to each party and to establish a value for the house and runway
as improvements (Reporter's Record -119).
On October 25, 2013, the Amended Report of Commissioners (CR-65)
was filed of record. On January 11, 2014, the Court entered the Final Decree
of Partition, same being filed on July 15, 2014, in the 115th Judicial District
Court (CR-80).
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
Appellees agree that the issues presented for review are intertwined
and will respond to the argument and authority section as stated by the
Appellant.
7
A. The Court properly advised the Special Commissioners to
consider the value of the house, in conformity with the Decree
Ordering Partition and Appointing Commissioners.
B. The Court properly instructed the commissioners to include the
value of the home in amending the report because of the prior
order of the court and the stipulation of the parties.
C. The Commissioners properly followed the Court's instructions in
the Decree Ordering Partition and Appointing Special
Commissioners , and the Court was proper in entering its Final
Decree of Partition based upon the Report of Commissioners.
This case has had a long and tortuous road in arriving at the point
where we find ourselves today. The original case was heard by Judge
Richard Davis; and on the 21 st day of June, 2010, Judge Davis entered a
Decree Ordering Partition and Appointing Commissioners. Thereafter, Judge
Davis entered an order on the 191h day of July, 2010, which was an Amended
Decree Ordering Partition and Appointing Commissioners.
In the Amended Decree (Clerk's Record, Page 17 in paragraph 2), the
Court stated , "that the following parties each own an undivided interest in the
8
.,
above-described property in fee simple" and thereafter set out the percentage
amounts.
It is undisputed that the home and one acre set aside to Mondee
Stracener were included in the 68.75% awarded to Mondee Stracener.
Thereafter, on page 4, paragraph 7 ,of the Amended Decree (Clerk's
Record, page 20) the Court states, "That the single family dwelling and 1 acre
is ORDERED Mondee Stracener's sole property in his own right, and that
upon partition of the property he is entitled to have set aside as part of his
68.75% interest that portion of the property upon which the home is situated ."
The Court goes on to state (Clerk's Record, page 20), "IT IS,
THEREFORE, ORDERED that the foregoing property is partitioned between
the above-named parties such that the value of the parcels allotted to each
party reflects that party's interest as recited above, and that the above-
described single family dwelling and 1 acre on which the house rests is
awarded to Mondee Stracener, Plaintiff, and that in addition his share of the
real property is set aside to include such improvements."
Appellant wants to take the position that the home as set aside to
Mondee Stracener was to be set aside as his sole and separate property,
9
separate and apart from the partition. Appellees contend the house was
never intended to be excluded from the partition of the property as a whole .
The position of the Appellant is contrary to the stipulation and the intent of the
parties as found by the Trial Court. It is obvious that the parties intended to
divide monies and award Mondee Stracener specific property. However, to
assume this would include a gift of the house to Mondee Stracener is
ridiculous . Appellant in his argument states that the single family dwelling
was not to be considered, but this argument conflicts with the above-stated
paragraph wherein the Court expressly orders that the "foregoing property is
partitioned between the above- named parties." The Court does not
segregate the separate tracts to be partitioned from the single family dwelling
and 1 acre but merely awards the ownership of that single family dwelling and
1 acre to Mondee Stracener as a part of the 68.75% interest that he owns,
pursuant to the stipulation.
The partition of the property was a part and parcel of a settlement of all
of the interests in the Estate of Ida Mae Stracener, and the original partition
included a division of monies between the parties to equalize the Estate.
As set out in the stipulation at the hearing held on May 17, 2010,
(Respondent's Exhibit 4 located at the end of Volume 3 Reporter's Record of
10
the hearing held November 18, 2013), the stipulation was that "Mondee
Stracener will take title in fee simple absolute to the house and that, out of
the percentage of property that Mr. Stracener owns, he will allocated
[sic] one acre which will go along with the house. That out of the
acreage, Mondee Stracener will be allocated sixty-eight-point-seventy-
five percent which includes the house and one acre."
The language "out of the percentage of property that Mr. Stracener
owns" was not objected to or clarified and sets out that Mondee Stracener's
percentage would include the 1 acre and house (and the value).
The May 17, 2010 hearing thereafter proceeded with the Court hearing
evidence as to setting aside specific property, such as the runway in dispute,
to Mondee Stracener which was denied by the Court (Amended Decree
Ordering Partition and Approving Commissioner's Report, Clerk's Record,
pages 17-21 ).
STANDARD OF REVIEW ARGUMENT
A trial court exercises broad discretion in balancing the equities in a
case seeking equitable relief. Edwards v. Mid-Continent Office Distributors,
LP, 252 S.W.3d 833 at 836 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 2008, pet denied).
11
.'
In a non-jury trial, when a court makes no separate findings of fact or
conclusions of law, the appellate court must assume that the trial court made
all findings in support of its judgment. Pharro v. Chambers Co., 922 S.W.
2d 945 at 948 (Texas 1996). The trial court's judgment must be affirmed if it
can be upheld on any legal theory that finds support in the evidence. In Re:
W.E.R. 669 S.W.2d 716 , 717 (Texas 1984).
The trial court as the finder of fact is the sole judge of the credibility of
the witnesses and the weight to be assigned to their testimony. Canal
Insurance Company v. Hopkins, 238 S.W.3d 549, 557 (Tex. Civ. App . - Tyler
2007,pet denied). A reviewing court may not impose its own opinion for that
of the finder of fact, and a reviewing court must assume that the finder of fact
decided all credibility issues in favor of the findings if a reasonable person
could do so. The appellate court must assume that the finder of fact chose
what testimony to believe or disregard based upon the evidence that the
finder of fact heard, were reasonable . City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S. W . 3d
802, 819-20 (Texas 2005). Therefore, an appellate court must assume that
the finder of fact made all inferences in favor of the findings if a reasonable
person could do so. Canal Insurance Company v. Hopkins, 238 S.W.3d 549
at 557 (Tex. Civ. App. -Tyler 2007,pet denied).
12
'. .
In the instant case , the Court heard all of the evidence and thereafter
rendered an original order determining the interests of the joint owners and
claimants, and appointed the commissioners giving them appropriate
directions.
Judge Davis specifically addressed the issue that Appellant complains
about. In the hearing on Motion Objecting to Commissioners Report held
November 18, 2013, the Court, at pages 117-118 of the hearing transcript
(RR -117 -118), received evidence concerning the previous agreements ofthe
parties concerning the home (Exhibit 4 of transcript of previous hearing).
Thereafter, on page 119 of the hearing transcript on Motion Objecting
to Commissioners Report (RR- 119), the Court directed the Commissioners
to prepare an amended report reflecting the values as required by statute.
On page 119, at line 21 of the Reporters Record of the November 18,
2013 hearing (RR- 19), counsel for Appellees asked specifically whether "we
are to consider the value of the house and will consider the partition?" The
Court responded, "Correct," and thereafter, on page 120 (RR - 120),
continued to discuss the value of the runway and house and whether or not
their values affect the value of the land and directed that the value of the
house and runway "are to be taken into consideration if it's appropriate" (RR-
13
120). This specific statement negates Mondee Stracener's position that the
house was awarded to him free and clear of the balance of the partition.
Therefore, the Trial Court, which had heard this case from the
beginning , specifically ordered that the value of the house be considered in
the overall partition by the Commissioners , which the Commissioners did.
Once the Commissioners returned their Amended Report, the Court acted
upon Defendants' Motion to Enter Judgment.
In the hearing held on Defendant's Motion to Enter Judgment on the 181h
day of June, 2014, page 16, beginning line on 17 of the Record (RR
06/18/2014- page 16), the Court found that "that stipulation does not reflect
that the value of the house would not be considered . Therefore, the Court
finds that the value of the house is to be considered by the Commissioners
in making their division. Therefore, it is the order of the Court that the
amended partition order is approved by the Court. " This once again confirms
the Court's finding and determination based upon the evidence he heard.
It is clear that the Trial Court carefully heard and considered all of the
evidence in making its final decision. It is obvious that the Court determined
the questions of fact in favor of the judgment rendered and thereafter entered
an order properly based upon the Commissioners' find ings. This Court should
14
not be asked to and should not substitute its judgment fo r that of the Trial
Court Ibid . (City of Keller and Canal Insurance Company).
CONCLUSION
Because the Court entered a specific order partition ing the property in
question and awarded a specific percentage to the parties , the
commissioners had a specific task to perform according to the law. The
subsequent Decree was confirmed by the Tyler Court of Appeals, and
thereafter the Court considered the report of the Commissioners as
amended. It is obvious that the Court based its Final Decree of Partition upon
the evidence and arguments heard, and resolved all questions offact and law
in favor of the judgment. Therefore, the judgment should be affirmed by this
Court which should not attempt to substitute its judgment for those found by
the trier of fact.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellees respectfully move
the Court to affirm the trial court's final decree of partition dated July 11, 2014,
and filed July 15, 2014, in all ways , and overrule Appellant's appeal and
adjudge all costs against Appellant and for such other and further relief to
which Appellees may show themselves justly entitled.
15
·, .
Respectfully submitted:
GRIFFITH & GRIFFITH LAW FIRM, P.C.
404 North Titus
P.O. Box 864
Gilmer, Texas 75644-0864
Tel: (903) 843-5005
Fax: (903) 843-5392
E-Mail: davidg@griffithlawfirm.com
BY: /s/ David B. Griffith
David B. Griffith
State Bar No. 08479300
Attorney for Appellees
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this document was prepared with WordPerfect X5. The
body text is in 14 point font, and the footnote text is in 12 point font. Relying
on the word count function in the word processing software used to produce
this document, I certify that the number of words in this reply (excluding any
caption, identity of parties and counsel, statement regarding oral argument,
table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, statement of
issues presented, statement of jurisdiction, statement of procedural history,
signature, proof of service, certification, certificate of compliance, and
appendix) is 3,180.
Is/ David B. Griffith
David B. Griffith
16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on April 10, 2015, a true and correct copy of Appellee's
Brief was served on Mondee Stracener's attorney of record, Robert M.
Minton , electronically at mintonbrown@suddenlinkmail.com and the electronic
transmission was reported as complete.
lsi David B. Griffith
David B. Griffith
Email: davidg@griffithlawfirm.com
17