Gwen M. Rowling v. Harry H. Rowling
2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 1399
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Harry Rowling sued for partition of real property jointly inherited by Harry and Gwen; court appointed a receiver and ordered sale as property was indivisible.
- Receiver sold estate assets; Gwen and Harry each entitled to one-half of proceeds; receiver later sought discharge after sale.
- Trial court sanctioned Gwen $500 for threatening/interfering with the receiver, ordering the $500 deducted from Gwen’s share of sale proceeds.
- Receiver’s accounting showed the $500 deduction; court discharged the receiver and ordered distribution, disbursing $16,799.18 to Gwen (reflecting the deduction).
- Gwen filed a timely appeal from both the receiver-discharge/disbursement order and the sanctions order; Harry moved to dismiss based on the acceptance-of-benefits doctrine.
- Gwen claimed she accepted proceeds out of economic necessity; the court found her financial affidavits incomplete and insufficient to show she lacked funds for necessities, concluding acceptance was voluntary.
Issues
| Issue | Rowling's Argument | Gwen's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does acceptance-of-benefits doctrine bar Gwen’s appeal? | Acceptance of sale proceeds estops Gwen from appealing the judgment. | Acceptance was involuntary due to economic necessity; doctrine should not apply. | Doctrine applies; acceptance of proceeds bars appeal and requires dismissal. |
| Is the $500 sanction challenge separable from discharge/disbursement order? | The sanction was deducted from proceeds tied to discharge order; reversal of sanction would require reversing discharge. | Gwen argued she can still challenge sanction despite receiving proceeds. | Court held the sanction is directly connected to the discharge order; both are implicated. |
| Does economic-necessity exception avoid estoppel? | N/A | Gwen asserted she lacked income and needed proceeds for mortgage/necessities. | Affidavits were incomplete (no income sources listed); insufficient to prove duress; exception not met. |
| Procedural result if doctrine applies | N/A | N/A | Appeal dismissed as moot; pending motions denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carle v. Carle, 234 S.W.2d 1002 (Tex. 1950) (early Texas authority applying acceptance-of-benefits estoppel)
- F.M.G.W. v. D.S.W., 402 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013) (discussing dismissal where appellant accepted benefits)
- Richards v. Richards, 371 S.W.3d 412 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (acceptance-of-benefits doctrine applied to bar appeal)
- Harlow Land Co., Ltd. v. City of Melissa, 314 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (doctrine grounded in estoppel and equity)