Ripley Dean Sutton v. Emmett Sutton III and Cheryl Stallworth
14-20-00335-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 28, 2021Background:
- Three siblings (Ripley Dean Sutton and appellees Emmett Sutton III and Cheryl Stallworth) held undivided interests in an office building after their mother’s death.
- Appellees sued for partition, alleging the property was not divisible and should be sold; parties agreed on ownership shares and an appraiser set fair market value at $260,000.
- Appellant counterclaimed for ouster, seeking compensation for alleged exclusion from possession and lost use.
- Appellees moved for no-evidence summary judgment on the ouster claim; appellant responded with three affidavits and two letters; appellees objected to that evidence.
- The trial court sustained objections, struck much of appellant’s evidence, granted the no-evidence summary judgment, and the property was sold; appellant appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction because mother’s probate was still pending | Appellant: probate estate remained open, so exclusive probate jurisdiction divested district court | Appellees: probate was effectively closed and district court had jurisdiction over partition | Court: probate administration was not shown to be ongoing; district court had jurisdiction |
| Whether appellant waived review by failing to timely appeal earlier partition orders | Appellant: trial court may address ouster after sale; no final ruling on ouster until the second final judgment | Appellees: issues determinable in step-one partition should have been appealed immediately | Court: trial court may exercise discretion to address claims after sale; appellant’s challenge properly reviewable with the final partition judgment |
| Whether sale of the property rendered the ouster claim moot | Appellant: sale does not necessarily preclude monetary relief for ouster | Appellees: sale eliminated the need for further relief, mooting the claim | Court: sale did not render ouster claim moot because monetary relief remained available |
| Whether trial court erred in striking appellant’s affidavits/letters and granting no-evidence summary judgment on ouster | Appellant: affidavits and letters raised genuine fact issues on notice/repudiation element | Appellees: evidence was inadmissible (hearsay, settlement communications, conclusory) and insufficient under Rule 166a(i) | Court: district court did not abuse discretion in excluding letters (hearsay/settlement) or many affidavit statements (hearsay/conclusory); any errors in striking other affidavits were harmless; no-evidence SJ affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) (consideration of summary-judgment evidence for nonmovant)
- Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (no-evidence summary judgment standards)
- Estate Land Co. v. Wiese, 546 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017) (partition procedure and appealability of partition orders)
- In re Blankenship, 392 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (when a probate estate is considered closed)
- Goodloe & Meredith v. Harris, 94 S.W.2d 1141 (Tex. Comm’n Op. 1936) (court may adjust equities between cotenants in partition suit)
- Burdette v. Estate of Burns, 200 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (trial court discretion to address claims before or after sale)
- Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. 2004) (proponent bears burden to show hearsay exception applies)
- Thomas v. McNair, 882 S.W.2d 870 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1994) (preliminary partition decree and trial court’s continuing power to resolve related claims)