Calvert v. Crawley
| Decision Date | 10 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 01-20-00105-CV |
| Parties | RICHARD LEON CALVERT AND MELISSA CALVERT MORRIS, Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. DEBORAH CALVERT CRAWLEY, ROBERT D. CALVERT, JR., AND LAURA CALVERT BATES, Appellees/Cross-Appellants |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 271, 290-403
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Guerra.
This appeal is part of a decade-long probate dispute between two groups of step-siblings-appellants Richard Leon Calvert ("Richard") and Melissa Calvert Morris ("Melissa") (collectively, "appellants") and appellees Deborah Calvert Crawley ("Deborah"), Robert D. Calvert, Jr. ("Robert"), and Laura Calvert Bates ("Laura") (collectively "appellees")-over the division of mineral interests previously owned by their deceased father and grandmother. In the underlying lawsuit, appellees sued appellants, seeking a declaration of the parties' respective interests under a settlement agreement that purported to resolve prior litigation between them. Appellants countersued.
The probate court entered a partial summary judgment in favor of appellees on their claim against appellants, interpreting the settlement agreement as excluding appellants from an ownership interest in some of the contested properties, and on their affirmative defenses to appellants' counterclaims. After a bench trial on the issue of attorney's fees, the probate court rendered a final judgment for appellees.
On appeal, [1] appellants challenge the probate court's rulings in ten issues that can be organized in three general categories: alleged errors related to (1) the summary judgment interpreting the settlement agreement (Issues 1 through 3); (2) the summary judgment dismissing appellants' counterclaims (Issues 4 through 9); and (3) the award of attorney's fees to appellees (Issue 10).
We affirm the probate court's summary judgment rulings however, because we agree with appellants that appellees were not entitled to recover their attorney's fees, we modify the judgment to eliminate the fees award.
The parties are the surviving children of Robert D. Calvert, Sr. ("Calvert Sr."), [2] deceased in 1994, and grandchildren of Mary Ione Calvert ("Mary") deceased in 2000. Before Calvert Sr.'s death, he and Mary were the owners of the surface and mineral rights to a 297.53-acre tract of land in the Burrell Morris Survey in Houston County, Texas (the "Burrell Morris Property"). In 1985, they sold the Burrell Morris Property's surface estate to MWI Land, Inc., reserving the mineral estate for themselves. Twelve years later through a gift deed, Mary conveyed her interest in the mineral rights of the Burrell Morris Property to Deborah, Robert, and Laura. Mary had previously conveyed to Deborah, Robert, and Laura her entire one-half undivided interest in another tract of land-a 50-acre tract in the John Blunt Survey in Houston County that is included in a larger pooled acreage known as the Ella Jane Unit (the "Ella Jane Property")-through a special warranty deed.[3] The Burrell Morris Property and the Ella Jane Property are at the center of the parties' dispute.
In 2004, Deborah, as the independent executrix of Calvert Sr.'s estate and the trustee of testamentary trusts established in Calvert Sr.'s will, divided the estate's real property assets between the siblings through executrix deeds (the "2004 executrix deeds"). Deborah conveyed to herself, Robert, and Laura (1) the estate's interest in the mineral rights of the Burrell Morris Property, and (2) the estate's one-half undivided interest in the Ella Jane Property. Richard and Melissa received interests in other properties.
The prior Estate Litigation and resulting Settlement Agreement
In June 2011, Richard sued Deborah individually and in her representative capacities (the "Estate Litigation"). Richard asserted claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with inheritance rights, and conspiracy, based on allegations that Deborah conspired with Robert and Laura to hide Calvert Sr.'s and Mary's assets and inequitably divided the estate. He later joined Robert and Laura as defendants in the Estate Litigation, and Melissa joined as a plaintiff asserting identical claims against Deborah, Robert, and Laura.
After two years of litigation, the parties agreed to settle their dispute under terms expressed in a Rule 11 Agreement signed by counsel for both sides, which provided that:
Although the Rule 11 Agreement expressed that Deborah, Robert, and Laura should convey a designated percentage of the "MWI interests" to equalize the parties' shares of the "MWI mineral interests," it did not define either of those terms.
As called for in the Rule 11 Agreement, the parties executed a formal Settlement Agreement, effective October 2013. The Settlement Agreement recited the parties' "wish to resolve all differences and disputes (real or potential) between them, "[5] and expressly incorporated the Rule 11 Agreement by reference and as an exhibit.
Section 1(c) of the Settlement Agreement obligated Deborah, Robert, and Laura to convey certain of the real property interests Mary had given them to Richard and Melissa, providing:
DEBORAH, LAURA, and ROBERT agree to jointly convey an undivided forty percent (40%) interest in the MWI mineral interests received by them from Mary . . . to RICHARD and MELISSA in equal shares (with the result being that RICHARD, MELISSA, DEBORAH (individually), LAURA, and ROBERT shall each own a 20% interest in all of the MWI mineral interests that were previously owned by Mary . . . and . . . Calvert, Sr.).
Again, the term "MWI mineral interests" was undefined.
Deborah, Robert, and Laura further agreed to "split any after-discovered land and/or mineral interests" owned by Calvert Sr. and Mary "equally" with Richard and Melissa, meaning "twenty percent (20%) for each party," but their agreement was "limited to land and/or mineral interests discovered by all parties after the effective date" of the Settlement Agreement and did not "open the door for RICHARD or MELISSA to claim an interest in land or mineral interests deeded to DEBORAH, LAURA, or ROBERT prior to the filing of the [Estate Litigation]."
In exchange, Richard and Melissa agreed to dismiss all claims against Deborah, Robert, and Laura in the Estate Litigation. As to Richard and Melissa, the Settlement Agreement provided:
Release. RICHARD and MELISSA, their heirs, predecessors, successors, assigns, administrators, trustees, legal representatives, employees and their former, present and future agents and attorneys hereby remise, release, acquit and forever discharge DEBORAH (in her individual and representative capacities), LAURA, and ROBERT, their heirs, predecessors, successors, assigns, administrators, trustees, legal representatives, employees and their former, present and future agents and attorneys of and from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, injuries, losses, lawsuits, obligations, liabilities of every kind and character, whether actual or potential, whether civil or criminal, presently known or unknown, disclosed or undisclosed, suspected or unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued which they may now have or may hereafter claim to have acquired against them, for or because of any act, omission, matter or thing done, omitted or suffered to be done by or on their behalf that in any way relates to the Estate of . . . Calvert, Sr., . . . and the Estate of Mary[.]
All parties agreed to cooperate in the execution and delivery of additional instruments as "reasonably requested from time to time in order to effectuate the provisions in th[e] Settlement Agreement." They warranted that each had "consulted with . . . or had the opportunity to consult with legal counsel" in executing the Settlement Agreement, had "relied on their own judgment," and had not been "induced to sign or execute the Settlement Agreement by promises, agreements, or representations not expressly stated therein." They "disclaim[ed] reliance on any fact, promise, undertaking or representation made by any other Party, save and except for the express agreements and representations contained in th[e] Settlement Agreement." And they agreed that the Settlement Agreement's "provisions," "attachments," and "exhibits constitute[d] the[ir] entire agreement . . . and supersede[d] all previous negotiations and documents occurring or created prior to mediation."
The underlying lawsuit
Despite the settlement, the parties continued to disagree about the extent of their property...
To continue reading
Request your trial