Aaron Thompson v. Sonia Thompson Bridges Vincent

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 16, 2008
• Docket: 12-07-00299-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

OPINION HEADING PER CUR

                NO. 12-07-00299-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

AARON THOMPSON,         §                      APPEAL FROM THE 349TH

APPELLANT

V.       

SONIA THOMPSON BRIDGES VINCENT,         §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

CHARLES R. THOMPSON, DOROTHY

HOPKINS, JIMMY LEE THOMPSON,

JOYCE REED, MARY THOMPSON,        

KIMBERLY BARKSDALE COVERT,

AND DARRYL BARKSDALE,

APPELLEES §                      ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Aaron Thompson (“Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s order requiring the sale of 43.07 acres in Anderson County, Texas and the distribution of the proceeds to Appellant and Sonia Thompson Bridges Vincent, Charles R. Thompson, Dorothy Hopkins, Jimmy Lee Thompson, Joyce Reed, Mary Thompson, Kimberly Barksdale Covert, and Darryl Barksdale (“Appellees”).  Appellant presents eleven issues for our review.  We affirm.

Background

            In 1963, George Lee Thompson died intestate.  In 2003, his widow, Iva Pearl Thompson, died leaving a will.  At the time of their deaths, George Lee Thompson and Iva Pearl Thompson owned 43.07 acres in Anderson County, Texas.  Appellant and Appellees are the heirs of George Lee Thompson and the devisees in Iva Pearl Thompson’s will.  Appellant filed a motion seeking relief against Sonia Thompson Bridges Vincent, in which he opposed the probate of Iva Pearl Thompson’s will, contested its validity, and  objected to the sale of the 43.07 acres.  Appellee Sonia Thompson Bridges Vincent filed an answer denying Appellant’s allegations, and all appellees filed a counterclaim seeking partition of the 43.07 acres.  Alternatively, if the property was not susceptible to division in kind, Appellees requested that the 43.07 acres be sold and the proceeds be divided among the heirs and devisees. 

            On August 3, 2007, the trial court held a hearing on Appellees’ counterclaim.  Sonia Thompson Bridges Vincent and Appellant testified.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ordered that the 43.07 acres be sold and that the proceeds be distributed to Appellant and Appellees in accordance with their proportional interests as determined by the court.  Appellant timely appealed that order to this court.

Order of Sale

            Appellant’s brief lists eleven issues in its attack on the trial court’s order.  We have carefully reviewed all eleven issues presented to us by Appellant.  None of the issues, even being liberally construed, attack the trial court’s order that the  43.07 acres be sold.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(e) (“The brief must state concisely all issues or points presented for review.  The statement of an issue or point will be treated as covering every subsidiary question that is fairly included.”) 

            All of Appellant’s issues contest the validity of Iva Pearl Thompson’s will and oppose the probate of her estate.  No judgment or order regarding the validity of her will or probate of her estate is in the record before us.  The record does not even contain a copy of her will.  In its hearing on August 3, 2007, the trial court considered only Appellees’ counterclaim for partition of the 43.07 acres.  An appellate court cannot reverse a trial court’s judgment absent properly assigned error. Pat Baker Co., Inc. v. Wilson, 971 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Tex. 1998); San Jacinto River Auth. v. Duke, 783 S.W.2d 209, 210 (Tex. 1990).  In the case before us, Appellant failed to present any issues challenging the trial court’s order.  Thus, we cannot consider Appellant’s eleven issues because they have no correlation to the order before us.  See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(a)(5).  Therefore, we overrule Appellant’s eleven issues.

Disposition

            The order of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                                                                     JAMES T. WORTHEN   

                                                                                                                 Chief Justice

Opinion delivered April 16, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)