Estate of Martha Jane Valdez
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 6485
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a will contest in a Texas probate case.
- Valdez challenged a trial court summary judgment on his counterclaim for tortious interference with inheritance rights.
- Robertson previously represented Martha Jane Valdez’s child in a guardianship; probate proceedings awarded guardian fees to Robertson which were later reversed on appeal.
- Valdez filed amended will probate applications; Robertson contested the will admission.
- The trial court granted summary judgment against Valdez on the counterclaim; Valdez appealed claiming improper notice, lack of standing, and sanctions.
- Valdez ultimately argued insufficient notice under Rule 166a(c) and that Robertson’s actions could be tortious interference; the court held notice issue harmless and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was proper notice under Rule 166a(c) | Valdez argues insufficient twenty-one-day notice. | Robertson contends notice was harmless and submission was properly considered on written briefs. | Harmless error; traditional summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether Robertson proved no tortious interference as a matter of law | Valdez contends Robertson interfered with inheritance rights. | Robertson’s filing of a will contest is not tortious interference per Probate Code §10C. | Robertson conclusively disproved tortious conduct; no genuine issue. |
| Whether Valdez could pursue a claim under Probate Code §10C and sanctions | Valdez asserts §10C authorizes his claim; seeks sanctions under Rule 13 and CPR chapter 10. | §10C bars tortious interference claims; briefing deficient. | Claim inadequately briefed; §10C bars the claim. |
| Whether the motion for new trial was preserved or waived due to briefing | Valdez argues denial of a new trial. | Valdez provided no authorities or clear argument. | Waived due to inadequate briefing. |
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment based on pleadings and response | Valdez contends there were triable issues of fact. | Robertson showed all essential elements were lacking. | Judgment proper; no genuine issue of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987) (recognition of tortious interference with inheritance rights)
- Brandes v. Rice Trust, Inc., 966 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998) (elements of tortious interference with inheritance rights)
- Lenape Res. Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 870 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. 1993) (proper exercise of legal rights cannot constitute tortious interference)
- In re Blankenship, 392 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (briefing insufficiency; evidence to defeat summary judgment required)
- Longoria v. Laster, 292 S.W.3d 156 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009) (summary judgment standards for tortious interference)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. 2005) (summary judgment standards and deference to evidence)
- Martin v. Martin & Richards, Inc., 989 S.W.2d 357 (Tex. 1998) (notice requirements for summary judgments; written submissions)
- Whiteside v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 220 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (harmless error where response opportunity adequate)