Patrick Kaptchinskie and Laura Kaptchinskie v. the Estate of Charles O. Kirchner
14-15-01080-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 27, 2017Background
- Patrick and Laura Kaptchinskie purchased property from Charles and Betty Kirchner in 2007 and agreed to make monthly payments under a promissory note through 2019.
- Betty predeceased Charles; Charles died September 16, 2009, and payments ceased after his death (last payment made in August 2009 for the July installment).
- Mira Huffman was appointed independent administratrix of Charles’s estate in December 2010; she later pursued collection on the note and rejected a $10,000 settlement offer.
- In July 2014 attorney Peter Bennett sent a notice of default/acceleration; the Kaptchinskies sued for injunctive relief and Bennett counterclaimed on behalf of “the Estate of Charles O. Kirchner.”
- After a bench trial on breach of contract, the trial court awarded the estate $69,487.94 in actual damages plus $12,500 in attorney’s fees; the Kaptchinskies appealed asserting lack of capacity, limitations, and reliance on inadmissible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kaptchinskies) | Defendant's Argument (Huffman/Estate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capacity to sue | Huffman lacked legal authority to sue for the estate; estate is not a legal entity | Huffman was the administratrix, filed pleadings, produced letters of administration, and acted throughout | Capacity challenge waived (not in a verified pleading); misnomer treated as administratrix; Huffman had authority |
| Statute of limitations | Breach accrued in Aug 2008; counterclaim filed July 2014 is time-barred | Limitations tolled by decedent’s death and by the one-year toll or until administrator qualified; last unpaid payment due Aug 1, 2009; claim asserted within five-year toll period | Limitations is an affirmative defense the Kaptchinskies failed to prove; Huffman’s claim was timely |
| Defect of parties | Contract was with both Charles and Betty; suit named only Charles’s estate | Parties waived defect by not timely objecting; estate’s administratrix represented the claim | Waived for failure to raise before trial; not addressed on merits |
| Evidentiary sufficiency on damages | Trial court relied on inadmissible exhibits and ignored alleged overpayments | Eight exhibits admitted without objection; one limited-admission exhibit supplemented by admitted exhibits and Huffman’s testimony | Speculative complaint lacked record citations; exhibits and testimony supported award; issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Estate of Anderson, 522 S.W.2d 690 (Tex. 1975) (a decedent’s estate is not a legal entity; misnomer treated like a misnomer where party answers and participates)
- City of Port Isabel v. Pinell, 161 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005) (capacity is not jurisdictional)
- Mariner Health Care of Nashville, Inc. v. Robins, 321 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (failure to raise lack of capacity in a verified pleading waives the complaint)
- Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. 2011) (burden to prove affirmative defenses at trial)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and crediting favorable evidence)
- Associated Indem. Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. 1998) (to overcome adverse finding, appellant must show evidence conclusively establishes proposition)
- Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. 2016) (limitations is an affirmative defense)