in the Estate of Louis S. Bernal

Opinion

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.

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

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