in the Estate of Adel Sheshtawy
14-14-00515-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 19, 2015Background
- Decedent Adel Sheshtawy died owning fee simple title to real property at 12206 Cabo Blanco Lane; his alleged common-law spouse Valentina Spassova Sheshtawy and her daughter Lily lived there after his death.
- Valentina sued claiming common-law spousal rights; parties entered a Rule 11 / Settlement Agreement resolving that dispute and the estate claims, which the probate court approved July 17, 2013.
- The Settlement Agreement required sale of the Cabo Blanco property, a $100,000 cash payment to Valentina at closing, and up to $250,000 of sale proceeds to be used to purchase a new homestead for Lily (with interim housing from proceeds as needed).
- Valentina later objected to the estate’s preliminary inventory and appraisement and sought injunctive relief to block sale; the Temporary Administrator moved to dismiss the injunction suit as baseless under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a, asserting waiver, release, estoppel, and res judicata.
- The trial court approved the settlement, found sale of the property necessary per the agreement, and dismissed Valentina’s injunction action as baseless; Temporary Administrator argues Valentina waived homestead rights by contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common-law marriage status affects this appeal | Valentina contends she is common-law spouse with attendant rights | Fuqua: settlement expressly waived any such rights; issue resolved by settlement approval | Court treated marriage claim as immaterial because rights were waived in approved settlement |
| Validity/approval of preliminary inventory & appraisement | Valentina challenges probate approval and sufficiency of appraisement | Fuqua: decedent owned fee simple title; property properly listed; objections waived by agreement and untimely | Court upheld approval; objections barred by prior settlement and timing |
| Whether homestead occupancy prevented sale or required different treatment | Valentina asserts homestead rights require protection of property from sale | Fuqua: settlement expressly authorized sale and provided for Lily’s replacement homestead and interim housing — constituting waiver | Court found settlement unambiguous and effectuated sale and replacement homestead per agreement |
| Dismissal of injunction under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a | Valentina sought injunction to stop sale | Fuqua moved to dismiss as baseless asserting waiver, release, estoppel, res judicata | Court properly dismissed injunction as baseless pursuant to rule, given the approved settlement and related defenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Balandran v. Safeco Ins. Co., 972 S.W.2d 738 (Tex. 1998) (contract construction focuses on parties’ intent)
- Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. New Ulm Gas, Ltd., 940 S.W.2d 587 (Tex. 1996) (court may consider entire contract and circumstances in interpretation)
- Langley v. Jernigan, 76 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App. — Waco 2002) (waiver of homestead requires clear, unequivocal acts or intent)
- Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517 (Tex. 1995) (unambiguous contracts are given their plain meaning)
- Tenneco Inc. v. Enterprise Prods. Co., 925 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1996) (intent to waive can be inferred from conduct inconsistent with assertion of rights)