in the Matter of the Guardianship of Stacy James Browning
11-20-00044-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 28, 2022Background
- Stacy J. Browning (the Ward) was incapacitated after a childhood head injury; his mother (Pam Browning) served as guardian of his person and estate.
- The Ward’s estate owned land in Williamson County leased for a shooting range; nearby purchasers (Manor Ranches and Creekside, controlled by Jay Dickens) sued in Williamson County alleging bullets landed on their property and obtained a preliminary injunction.
- Dickens sent multiple letters to the Guardian after the injunction, some threatening and suggesting removal; Appellants (Creekside, Manor, Dickens) filed a motion in intervention in the Scurry County guardianship seeking removal and injunctive relief related to the range.
- The trial court denied the motion to intervene, granted the Guardian’s motion in limine and motion to strike, found the intervention filed in bad faith to gain advantage in the Williamson County suit and to harass the Guardian, and awarded sanctions (attorney’s fees) against Appellants.
- Appellants appealed; the Ward died during the appeals, rendering many substantive issues moot. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed denial of intervention and the sanctions award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellants could intervene in the guardianship under Tex. Est. Code §1055.003 | Appellants: they were "interested persons" entitled to intervene to protect the Ward and estate | Guardian: intervention was improperly motivated, would prejudice original parties, and was an attempt to gain advantage in Williamson County | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion in denying intervention under §1055.003(c); denial affirmed |
| Whether trial court’s findings that intervention was brought in bad faith / to harass were supported | Appellants: conclusions unsupported by law/fact | Guardian: letters, timing, and requested relief show improper purpose and harassment | Court: findings are supported by evidence (letters, timing, shutdown of range, APS closure); conclusions upheld |
| Whether sanctions under Chapter 10 (and Rule 13) were proper | Appellants: sanctions arbitrary, unsupported, and deprived them of opportunity to rebut | Guardian: pleadings were filed for improper purpose; sanctions warranted including attorney’s fees | Court: abuse-of-discretion standard; "some evidence" of improper purpose exists (bad faith to extract Williamson remedy); sanctions affirmed |
| Whether remaining issues (including removal-on-merits) are moot after Ward’s death | Appellants: sought relief removing guardian on merits | Guardian: death of Ward terminates guardianship; merits moot | Court: death rendered many issues moot; court proceeded only with nonmoot issues and affirmed disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Zipp v. Wuemling, 218 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2007) (death of ward terminates guardianship and renders removal claims moot)
- Jaster v. Comet II Constr., Inc., 438 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. 2014) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Nath v. Texas Children’s Hosp., 446 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2014) (standard of review and evidentiary burden for sanctions)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (appellate review of conclusions of law)
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (purpose of temporary injunction to preserve status quo)
- Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Prods., LLC, 601 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. 2020) (courts’ inherent powers and sanction authorities)
- TransAmerican Nat. Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (due-process limits on sanctions)