In re Estate of Bloomer
| Decision Date | 12 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-10-00021-CV,11-10-00021-CV |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD R. BLOOMER, DECEASED |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
This is an appeal from the trial court's denial of a petition for bill of review filed by Carol Bloomer Nelson, the independent executrix of the estate of Richard R. Bloomer, deceased. In the petition for bill of review, Nelson challenged the judgment declaring heirship. Nelson presents two issues on appeal in which she contends that the judgment declaring heirship contained erroneous provisions regarding the portion of the estate passing by intestacy and the necessity for an administration of the estate. Because we agree, we reverse and remand.
Richard R. Bloomer left a will making various specific bequests to his two children, Carol Bloomer Nelson and Charles Richard Bloomer, and general bequests of $800,000 to his grandchildren ($400,000 to Nelson's children and $400,000 to Charles's children). After the will had been admitted to probate and during the administration of the estate, it was determined thatRichard R. Bloomer died partially intestate because his will did not contain a residuary clause. At the request of Nelson, the trial court held an heirship proceeding and determined that Nelson and Charles were the proper heirs at law and that each were entitled to a 50% share.1 The judgment declaring heirship incorporated an exhibit listing real property and personal property, valued at $2,616,089, "which passed by intestacy." The judgment also stated that "no necessity exists for the administration of this Estate." Nelson subsequently filed a petition for bill of review to modify the judgment declaring heirship because it effectively disinherited the grandchildren and altered the will's provision regarding the independent administration of the estate. Charles opposed the petition for bill of review. The trial court held a hearing and then entered an order denying the petition for bill of review. In that order, the trial court acknowledged that the judgment declaring heirship "is not correct and cannot stand as signed but that the issues will be litigated one time and one time only and we will not at this point reconsider this decision."
The Texas Probate Code provides that a bill of review may be filed in the probate court to revise or correct an erroneous decision, order, or judgment rendered by that court. TEX. PROB. CODE ANN. § 31 (West 2003). In an appeal from the denial of a statutory bill of review filed pursuant to Section 31, an appellate court must determine whether an interested person timely filed a bill of review and showed substantial error. Buck v. Estate of Buck, 291 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2009, no pet.); McDonald v. Carroll, 783 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, writ denied); Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Nuckols, 666 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also Nadolney v. Taub, 116 S.W.3d 273, 278-82 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). In the present case, it is undisputed that Nelson is an interested person and that she timely filed the petition for bill of review. Thus, the only disputed element is whether Nelson showed substantial error.
Based upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that Nelson has shown substantial error and that the judgment declaring heirship should have been revised and corrected by the trial court in the bill-of-review proceeding. The judgment declaring heirship was erroneous in two respects: the inclusion of the language regarding administration of theestate and the incorporation of the exhibit that listed $2,616,089 worth of property as passing by intestacy.
The record shows that the administration of the estate was ongoing and that, in his will, Richard R. Bloomer specifically provided for the independent administration of his estate and designated Nelson as the independent executrix. With respect to the issue before us, we hold that the trial court erred by including in the judgment declaring heirship a provision that no administration was necessary; that provision was contrary to the will and also had the effect of entitling Charles to immediately enforce his "right to payment, delivery, or transfer by suit" even though the...
To continue reading
Request your trial