Estate of James W. Fisher
421 S.W.3d 682
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- James W. Fisher executed a will dated March 30, 2011, that left the bulk of his estate to his biological nephew, James Umberger. Sheila N. Fisher (an adopted daughter) and her husband, Carlos Garcia, III, contested probate, alleging undue influence by Umberger and seeking to probate an earlier will and impose constructive trusts on several bank accounts and assets.
- Umberger moved for no-evidence summary judgment on undue influence; the trial court granted the no-evidence summary judgment in part, finding Contestants offered no evidence on the elements of undue influence and permitting an interlocutory appeal.
- Sheila and Garcia filed a permissive (interlocutory) appeal under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(d).
- The Court of Appeals analyzed whether the trial court’s certification satisfied § 51.014(d)’s requirements (controlling question of law with substantial ground for difference of opinion; immediate appeal materially advances termination of litigation) and whether the ruling was legal or factual.
- The court concluded the challenged ruling was a factual determination on undue influence (an ultimate fact question), not a controlling legal issue, and that the § 51.014(d) and appellate-rule showing was not met; it dismissed the permissive appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s certification under § 51.014(d) permits interlocutory appeal of a no‑evidence summary judgment on undue influence | Sheila/ Garcia argued the court’s order certified a controlling issue (undue influence) and that immediate appeal would materially advance termination | Umberger argued the order decides a fact issue by finding no evidence of undue influence and certification does not present a controlling legal question | Held: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — the order resolves a factual issue (undue influence) not a controlling question of law and the § 51.014(d) showing was insufficient |
| Whether undue influence at will execution is a question of law suitable for permissive appeal | Plaintiffs implied undue influence ruling raises a pivotal legal question warranting interlocutory review | Umberger and court: undue influence is an ultimate factual question for the factfinder, not a legal question for certification | Held: Undue influence is a fact question; § 51.014(d) inapplicable |
| Whether resolution of undue influence as to the will controls related claims (co‑ownership additions; constructive trust) | Plaintiffs contended the undue influence ruling would likely control other probate issues | Umberger and court: other issues involve separate factual inquiries (dates/transactions) not necessarily controlled by will ruling | Held: The will ruling does not necessarily control disputes over other transactions or constructive trust claims |
| Whether the petition for permissive appeal complied with Texas Rules (arguing controlling question of law and substantial ground for difference of opinion) | Plaintiffs submitted petition but did not clearly argue controlling question of law or substantial grounds | Umberger noted petition failed to show required legal argument; court found the petition inadequate | Held: Petition did not satisfy Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(e)(4); certification insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (final‑judgment rule and interlocutory appeal principles)
- Gulley v. State Farm Lloyds, 350 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (strict construction of § 51.014(d) and certification requirements)
- In re Estate of Butts, 102 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003) (undue influence is an ultimate factual question)
- Diamond Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. Handsel, 142 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (permissive appeals inappropriate where disputed facts control and no controlling legal issue)
- De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. 2006) (probate proceedings can yield multiple final judgments on discrete issues)
- State Fair of Tex. v. Iron Mountain Info. Mgmt., Inc., 299 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (partial summary judgment does not necessarily present a controlling question of law)