Baron Ablon v. Bari Ablon Campbell
457 S.W.3d 604
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Fred R. Ablon’s daughters (Bari and Rachelle) filed for a permanent guardianship of their father; Baron (their brother) opposed and later joined in funding an alleged trust Fred purportedly executed on May 17, 2012 (the Alleged Trust).
- A Rule 11 agreement had previously directed that Fred’s accounts be transferred to Frost Bank; sisters nonsuited their guardianship application but disputes continued over funding and the validity of the Alleged Trust.
- On July 19, 2012, the probate court (without serving or notifying Bari and Rachelle) held a hearing and entered a 2012 Order finding Fred had capacity and ordering funding of the Alleged Trust; the court later dismissed the guardianship application for the estate.
- Bari filed a Motion to Set Aside Void Order and statutory bill of review within two years, arguing the 2012 Order was void because necessary parties (named beneficiaries) were not joined and thus the court lacked jurisdiction; she also argued the court committed substantial error by depriving beneficiaries of the chance to contest the trust’s validity.
- At a July 2013 hearing the trial court granted the bill of review, found Bari was a necessary party and not virtually represented, concluded the court committed substantial error, set aside the 2012 Order (declaring it void), and ordered funds moved from the Alleged Trust to a section 867 Management Trust.
- On appeal Baron challenged the grant of the bill of review (jurisdiction/joinder/virtual representation/justiciable interest) and the transfer of funds; the court affirmed the 2013 Order and rejected Baron’s preserved arguments (the transfer-order complaint was waived).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bari) | Defendant's Argument (Baron) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by granting statutory bill of review | Court properly found substantial error because necessary beneficiaries were not joined, impairing Bari’s ability to challenge trust validity | Trial court retained jurisdiction; probate notice rules and prior participation meant no jurisdictional or joinder problem | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion — substantial error shown (lack of joinder/impairment plus conflicts; bill of review properly granted) |
| Whether failure to join beneficiaries was jurisdictional or cured by virtual representation | Rule 39 and trust-code require joinder of named beneficiaries; Bari was not virtually represented due to conflicts of interest | Joinder not jurisdictional under Rule 39; interested beneficiaries were effectively represented as parties in guardianship | Court concluded beneficiaries were necessary and Bari was not virtually represented due to conflicts; joinder failure supported substantial error finding |
| Whether Bari had a justiciable interest to challenge the Alleged Trust | As a named remainder beneficiary she had a direct, protectable interest and standing under trust code §115.011 | Her interest was only remainder/in reversion (could disclaim) and she lacked standing in a guardianship proceeding per probate §642 | Held Bari had a justiciable interest as a named beneficiary; lack of joinder impaired her ability to protect that interest |
| Whether trial court erred in ordering transfer of funds to Management Trust without notice/pleading | (Baron) Transfer lacked pleading/notice and opportunity to be heard | (Bari) Issue not preserved for appeal | Court: complaint waived—Baron failed to preserve error at trial; issue not reached on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Valdez v. Hollenbeck, 410 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard applied to review of bill of review)
- In re Guardianship of Winn, 372 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (statutory bill of review requires showing of substantial error)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (conclusions of law reviewed de novo; erroneous legal conclusions do not require reversal if judgment proper)
- Mason v. Mason, 366 S.W.2d 552 (Tex. 1963) (trust beneficiaries generally necessary parties unless adequately represented without conflict)
- Slay v. Burnett Trust, 187 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. 1945) (beneficiary is a necessary party in suits affecting trusts; cannot maintain action to establish trust validity without beneficiary)
- Hedley Feedlot, Inc. v. Weatherly Trust, 855 S.W.2d 826 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1993) (joinder of parties in trust disputes controlled by Rule 39; beneficiaries generally should be made parties)