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