Gottschald v. Reaves
| Decision Date | 11 August 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 523,523 |
| Citation | 470 S.W.2d 149 |
| Parties | Lois Lorraine GOTTSCHALD et al., Appellants, v. Mary Belle REAVES, individually, and in her capacity as the Independent Executrix of the Estate of Henry Frank Reaves, Deceased, Appellee. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
J. Leonard Gotsdiner, Ranseler O. Wyatt, Houston, for appellants.
Freddie F. Lee, Pasadena, Harold R. Allison, Houston, for appellee .
The appellants in this case are the surviving children of Henry Frank Reaves, deceased. They were born of a previous marriage. The appellee, Mary Belle Reaves, is the surviving wife of the decedent. The appellants filed the instant suit in the district court of Harris County to impress a trust on the decedent's estate in favor of the appellants alleging fault on the part of the appellee in the execution of a codicil to the decedent's will. In response, the appellee interposed a plea of limitations and a plea of res judicata based upon a prior judgment of the District Court of Harris County which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. See Gottschaid v. Reaves, 457 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston, 1st Dist., 1970, no writ). In the plea of res judicata, appellee referred specifically to the prior judgment, to the pleadings filed, to the charge of the court and the verdict of the jury, as well as the judgment and opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals of the cause, certified copies of each reference having been duly filed by the clerk of the district court in the present suit. The court granted the appellee's pleas of res judicata and limitations and rendered judgment denying appellants any relief.
In the prior action, the appellee first made application to the county court to probate the decedent's will. The appellants herein contested the probation and recording of the will and codicil on three grounds, these being, (1) lack of testamentary capacity, (2) undue influence and (3) fraud. The county court entered its order admitting both the will and codicil to probate and appellants appealed to the district court. In the district court the appellants alleged that the will and codicil were invalid on the grounds of undue influence and fraud in the procurement and execution of the codicil and prayed that the estate be distributed according to the laws of descent and distribution. In answer to special issues the jury in the district court failed to find that either the will or the codicil were procured by undue influence on the part of appellee. No issues were requested or submitted on testamentary capacity or fraud in the procurement and execution of the codicil. The district court's judgment admitting the will and codicil to probate was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, Gottschald v. Reaves, supra. The foregoing action in the county court, the district court and the court of civil appeals will sometimes herein be referred to as the 'first suit.'
The Court of Civil Appeals in Gottschald v. Reaves, supra at page 308 described the appellants' basic contentions in the following language:
This precise factual allegation is the basis of the appellants' instant suit to impress a trust on the decedent's estate; that is, the appellants' cause of action in the first suit to contest the probate of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coastal States Marketing, Inc. v. Hunt
...which have [sic] been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction." E.D. Systems, 674 F.2d at 457 (quoting Gottschald v. Reaves, 470 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex.Civ.App.1971)). Accord Puga v. Donna Fruit Co., 634 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex.1982); Texas Water Rights Commission v. Crow Iron Works, 582......
-
Robertson v. Campbell
...for different purposes and seek different relief. See also Kramer v. Freedman, Fla.App., 272 So.2d 195 (1973); Gottschald v. Reaves, Tex.Civ.App., 470 S.W.2d 149 (1971). A finding of undue influence in the execution of one document collaterally estops relitigation of that issue as to other ......
-
E. D. Systems Corp. v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.
...of a question of law or issue of fact which have (sic) been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction." Gottschald v. Reaves, 470 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex.Civ.App.1971). The principles of res judicata have been applied to shield the actions of a receiver, approved by a court, against coll......
-
Weaver v. City of Waco, 5923
... ... 70, 86, 41 S.Ct. 420, 422, 65 L.Ed. 831." Also see Marange v. Marshall (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1966) 402 S.W.2d 236, NRE; Gottschald v. Reaves (Tex.Civ.App. Houston 14th 1971) 470 S.W.2d 149, NRE ... In the case at bar, we believe that Plaintiff-Appellants the ... ...