Lemus v. Aguilar
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 2685
Tex. App.2016Background
- Elvira G. Aguilar owned the house at 106 Cameo Ave.; in 2005 she and partner Johnny Garza signed a handwritten document titled “Will from Johnny Montoya Garza and Elvira G. Aguilar” stating the house should be evenly owned by their three grandchildren and that changes required the grandchildren’s authorization.
- Elvira was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and showed progressive cognitive decline beginning in 2005; by late 2008 she was in a nursing home with medical records documenting dementia, psychosis, and confusion.
- On January 7, 2009, Irma Lemus (daughter) had Elvira sign a warranty deed at a coffee shop conveying the Cameo property to Irma and Manuel Lemus for “love and affection”; the deed was prepared at Irma’s request and recorded the next day.
- Garza (partner) and the grandchildren later brought a trespass-to-try-title suit challenging the Lemuses’ title; the trial court found the March 11, 2005 document operated as a gift deed (subject to a life estate for the donors), and found the January 7, 2009 warranty deed void for lack of Elvira’s capacity; it awarded title to the grandchildren and attorney’s fees to appellees but denied reimbursement claims by the Lemuses for repairs.
- On appeal the court reversed as to the gift-deed/family-title and the attorney’s-fee award, concluding the March 11, 2005 instrument was neither a valid will (not holographic as to Elvira) nor a gift deed (lacked present donative intent). The court affirmed the finding that Elvira lacked capacity when she signed the January 7, 2009 deed and affirmed denial of reimbursement for improvements; remanded for further proceedings on fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lemus) | Defendant's Argument (Garza/Grandchildren) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 11, 2005 document was a valid will | The document is a will executed by Elvira and Garza | The document fails will formalities for Elvira (not handwritten by her nor witnessed) | Not a valid will as to Elvira (requires attestation or holographic writing by Elvira) |
| Whether the March 11, 2005 document was a gift deed | Lemuses argued it was not a gift deed (testamentary language) | Appellees argued it manifested present donative intent transferring title to grandchildren | Lacked present donative intent; not a gift deed; trial court erred in treating it as one |
| Validity of the Jan. 7, 2009 warranty deed (mental capacity) | Lemuses: Elvira had sufficient mind and memory to understand the deed | Appellees: medical records and testimony show Elvira lacked capacity due to advanced Alzheimer’s | Affirmed: evidence supports trial court’s finding Elvira lacked requisite capacity; deed void for want of capacity |
| Reimbursement for repairs, improvements, and taxes (Tex. Prop. Code §22.021) | Lemuses: made improvements in good faith and are entitled to reimbursement or value | Appellees: Lemuses failed to plead/prove statutory elements (identity, value of improvements, value of use/occupancy); improvements began after suit | Affirmed: Lemuses failed to prove value of improvements and statutory prerequisites; denial of reimbursement upheld |
| Award of attorney’s fees under declaratory-judgment statute | Lemuses: (implicit) fees unsupported after reversal of title award | Appellees: trial court discretion to award fees under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §37.009 | Reversed as to fee award; remanded for trial court to reassess whether fees are equitable and just in light of reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Triestman v. Kilgore, 838 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. 1992) (holographic-will and attestation requirements)
- Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991) (will construction—ascertaining intent from the instrument)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard and evidentiary review)
- Decker v. Decker, 192 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (presumption of capacity to execute conveyance)
- Dorman v. Arnold, 932 S.W.2d 225 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996) (distinguishing testamentary intent from present donative intent)
- Kachina Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Lillis, 471 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2015) (appellate review of attorney’s-fee awards in declaratory-judgment actions)