Estate of John Breckenridge Gibson, Jr.
06-17-00059-CV
Tex. App.Oct 25, 2017Background
- John B. Gibson Jr. participated in the Teachers’ Retirement System of Texas (TRS) beginning June 1, 1989 and designated his sister, Beverly Ward, as TRS beneficiary in 1989; he married Mildred Diane Fox‑Gibson in 2003 and never changed the designation.
- Gibson died intestate on June 26, 2011; Fox‑Gibson was appointed estate administrator and sought a declaration that she was entitled to the community portion of TRS death benefits.
- Ward filed an answer and a declaratory judgment petition asserting the TRS beneficiary designation controlled payment of death benefits to her.
- The probate court found TRS benefits are non‑probate, Gibson’s beneficiary designation to Ward was never revoked, and Ward, as the named payable‑on‑death beneficiary, was entitled to all TRS benefits.
- Fox‑Gibson appealed, arguing the court erred by (1) allowing Ward’s late petition, (2) concluding the beneficiary designation rebutted the community‑property presumption, and (3) denying her any portion of the benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fox‑Gibson) | Defendant's Argument (Ward) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probate court abused discretion by allowing Ward’s amended/declaratory petition (Rule 63) | Ward’s petition was untimely, surprised and prejudiced Fox‑Gibson; should have been struck | Estate Code §55.001 allows interested persons to file opposition before court decides an issue; petition was filed well before final hearing | The court did not abuse its discretion; filing was permitted under Estates Code §55.001 and Rule 63 (seven‑day rule) did not apply |
| Whether beneficiary designation (and proof thereof) legally rebutted the presumption that TRS benefits are community property (conclusion of law No. 9) | Designation does not change character; benefits (or portion earned during marriage) are community property and Ward failed to rebut presumption | TRS benefits are non‑probate and the member has sole management and control to designate beneficiaries; existing findings establish payment to named beneficiary | Court held conclusion No. 9 was legally erroneous (designation does not change character), but error was harmless because unchallenged findings that TRS benefits are non‑probate and designation was effective supported the judgment in favor of Ward |
| Whether Fox‑Gibson preserved or proved entitlement to any community portion, reimbursement, or improvement claims | Entitled to portion accruing during marriage and to reimbursement/trace of improvements | No pleaded or preserved theory to support reimbursement or improvements; TRS non‑probate rules control distribution to beneficiary | Claims for reimbursement/improvements were not pleaded at trial and thus not preserved; failure to request additional findings waived complaints about omitted determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (procedural due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Valdez v. Ramirez, 574 S.W.2d 748 (Tex. 1978) (retirement plan death benefits are non‑probate and employee has sole management/control to designate disposition)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (reviewing court may ignore erroneous conclusions of law if judgment is correct)
- Barnett v. Barnett, 67 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. 2001) (character of property is determined at time of acquisition; applicable rules for community vs. separate property)