Clotilde Eaker v. John E. Mangiameli, Joseph L. Mangiameli, Martin, and the Jole P. Eaker Irrevocable Trust
09-19-00340-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 28, 2021Background
- Clotilde Eaker and siblings settled trust/Will litigation by a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) in July 2016: the Trust would use $200,000 to purchase an annuity chosen by Eaker; the Trust would own the annuity; Eaker would be annuitant and grandchildren named as death beneficiaries; MSA stated parties would execute documents necessary to effectuate the deal and that the MSA was final and binding.
- The Trust purchased the annuity Eaker selected; the contract reflected a three‑year deferred period before distributions could be taken.
- Eaker sued the Mangiamelis and the Trust claiming breach of the MSA (annuity payments), breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, and sought declaratory relief; she also sought specific performance and attorneys’ fees.
- The trial court granted defendants’ partial summary judgments dismissing Eaker’s claims (breach of MSA, fiduciary duty, gross negligence, and declaratory judgment). A bench trial followed only on attorneys’ fees; the court awarded defendants reasonable fees and costs and entered final judgment for defendants.
- Eaker appealed the summary‑judgment rulings and the fee award. The court of appeals affirmed: it found the MSA unambiguous as to the Trust’s obligation to purchase the annuity Eaker chose, no fiduciary duty was imposed on defendants by the MSA, declaratory relief was not warranted, and the fee award was supported by evidence and adequate segregation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of MSA — annuity payout timing/ambiguity | Eaker: “annuity” means periodic payments; the MSA required annuity payments to her within a reasonable time; purchasing a deferred annuity (3‑year penalty) breached the MSA | Mangiameli/Trust: MSA required Trust to buy a $200,000 annuity chosen by Eaker; MSA did not specify payout timing or structure so purchasing the annuity Eaker selected satisfied the MSA | MSA unambiguous as to who/what/ownership; annuity contract governs payout terms; no genuine fact issue — summary judgment for defendants |
| Breach of fiduciary duty | Eaker: defendants acted as trustees and admitted acting as trustees; this creates fiduciary duties or at least an informal fiduciary relationship | Defendants: Eaker is not a beneficiary under the Trust; the MSA is a contract and did not create additional trustee duties; any trustee duties run to named beneficiaries, not Eaker | No fiduciary duty to Eaker under the Trust or MSA; deposition testimony did not create a fact issue; summary judgment for defendants |
| Gross negligence (related to fiduciary duty) | Eaker: trustees’ conduct in delaying disclosure/purchase and failing to structure payouts shows gross negligence | Defendants: absent fiduciary duty, no tort liability; conduct complied with MSA and annuity advisor guidance | Dependent on fiduciary duty finding; because no fiduciary duty existed, gross negligence claim fails — summary judgment for defendants |
| Declaratory judgment (amount/timing/Trust modification) | Eaker: asked court to declare annuity benefit amount, timing for performance, and that MSA modified/extended Trust for her benefit | Defendants: MSA was a settlement contract that did not alter Trust terms; contract language does not support the requested declarations | Court may not rewrite contract; no factual or legal basis to declare MSA modified the Trust or fix payouts—summary judgment for defendants |
| Attorneys’ fees (UDJA and Trust Act) and segregation | Eaker: fee award was inequitable; defendants failed to properly segregate recoverable vs unrecoverable fees | Defendants: fees recoverable under UDJA and Trust Act; submitted lodestar evidence and segregated entries; items advancing both recoverable and unrecoverable claims need not be segregated under Chapa | Trial court did not abuse discretion: fees found reasonable/necessary, segregation was adequate under Tony Gullo/Chapa; award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (summary judgment burden rules)
- Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. 1996) (burden shifts after movant shows entitlement)
- Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. 1996) (contract ambiguity test)
- Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1983) (ambiguity typically precludes summary judgment)
- Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (attorney‑fee segregation rule and exception for intertwined services)
- Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. 2019) (lodestar analysis for fee awards)
- El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2012) (lodestar steps and evidence required)
- Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997) (factors for determining reasonable fee)
- Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (UDJA fee awards are equitable and fact‑intensive)