In re Tillotson
| Decision Date | 05 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 06-21-00073-CV |
| Parties | THE ESTATE OF LEAH RITA TILLOTSON, DECEASED |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Submitted: March 22, 2022
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 18359
Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and Carter, [*] JJ.
Thomas Tillotson raises complaints about the trial court's rulings related to the administration of his wife's estate. In this appeal, we find that most of Thomas's complaints either relate to matters that have already been decided by the Dallas Court of Appeals (the Dallas Court) in two prior cases, which have become the law of the case, or to final judgments and orders that were never timely appealed. To attack the final judgments and orders, Thomas filed a bill of review, but we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying it. Thomas also raises unpreserved complaints for the first time on appeal. We overrule all of Thomas's appellate points and affirm the trial court's order denying his bill of review and order requiring him to turn over certain assets pursuant to a mandate issued by the Dallas Court.
Thomas and Leah Rita Tillotson were married for thirty-seven years. On August 31, 2017, Leah died intestate, and her daughter from a previous marriage, Kristi Sherrill Hoyl, was appointed administratrix of Leah's estate. Thomas objected to Hoyl's initial and amended inventory, appraisement, and list of claims. Thomas's objections were the subject of an appeal filed in the Dallas Court, which described his complaints in the following manner:
Thomas objected that Hoyl had included among the estate's community property inventory Thomas's Rollover IRA, Roth IRA, and U.S. savings bonds. He argued that any community property interest the estate had in these items was preempted by federal law that established the investments and rendered them his separate property. Thomas also objected to two items listed among the claims owed to the estate: reimbursement to the estate of $25, 000 in Leah's separate property used as down payment to purchase the couple's home in 1984 and community funds allegedly used to pay mortgage, taxes and insurance on Thomas's separate real property. According to Thomas, the $25, 000 down payment came from community funds, and the estate actually benefited from rent on his separate real property. The trial court heard and overruled Thomas's objections.
Estate of Tillotson, No. 05-19-01192-CV, 2020 WL 7767937, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Dec. 30, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).
In that appeal, which was the first of two before the Dallas Court, Thomas argued that the trial court erred (1) "in approving Hoyl's inventory and appraisement to include his Rollover IRA and Roth IRA among the estate's community property interests," id. at *2, (2) "in approving Hoyl's claim for reimbursement of community property expended on Thomas's separate real property," id. at *8, (3) "in approving Hoyl's community property inventory to include U.S. savings bonds issued solely in his name," id. at *3, and (4) "in approving Hoyl's claim for reimbursement of Leah's separate property used for a down payment on the family home in 1984," id. at *6.
The Dallas Court determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion "in approving Hoyl's inventory as to the Rollover and Roth IRAs," id. at *3, or "in approving Hoyl's claim for reimbursement of community property expended on Thomas's separate real property," id. at *8. Even so, the Dallas Court found that "the trial court abused its discretion in approving Hoyl's inventory to include Thomas's U.S. savings bonds among the estate's share of community property and in approving Hoyl's claim for reimbursement of $25, 000 of Leah's separate property used for a down payment on the River Oaks House" (River Oaks). Id. at *9. As a result, the Dallas Court reversed the trial court's order with respect to the U.S. savings bond and the $25, 000.00 reimbursement claim, affirmed the remaining portions of the trial court's order, and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Id.
Hoyl filed a second amended inventory, appraisement, and list of claims (Inventory 2), which was approved by the trial court in an order entered on October 5, 2019 (Inventory 2 Approval Order). On November 13, 2019, the trial court entered judgment of $16, 666.67 against Thomas in favor of Leah's estate for reimbursement and granted Hoyl's claim for an equitable lien in that amount in favor of the estate against River Oaks. After Hoyl had filed an application for turnover of property, Thomas agreed to an order of partial distribution of property, leaving only certain property in dispute. On December 20, 2019, the trial court also entered a separate judgment against Thomas after finding that Leah's estate was entitled to reimbursement of $28, 209.00 "for investment in the separate property of Thomas Tillotson" and imposed an equitable lien on that separate property, called the "Bonnie View" property. These 2019 Judgments[1] were not appealed.
Hoyl next filed an application for partition of four items that she contended constituted community property: (1) a "Fidelity, individual stock account ending in 5749," (2) a "Fidelity Rollover, IRA ending in 0935," (3) a "Fidelity Roth IRA, ending in 8220," and (4) "255 U.S. savings bonds, series EE in various denominations," and prayed for the trial court to issue a turnover order. After a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Hoyl's requested relief in an order for "Turnover Partition and Distribution of Estate" (Turnover Order) and ordered sums representing Leah's estate's interest in each of the four items to be turned over to Hoyl. Thereafter, Thomas pursued three avenues in an effort to overturn the trial court's Turnover Order: filing a new petition, filing a bill of review, and filing an appeal with the Dallas Court. We discuss each in turn.
On October 30, 2020, Thomas filed an original petition for declaratory judgment requesting the trial court to declare (1) that Inventory 2 did not establish title to property, (2) that the four assets listed in the Turnover Order were non-probate assets owned by him, (3) that the 2019 Judgments that were not appealed were void, (4) that River Oaks was his homestead, and (5) that the Bonnie View property was his separate property.[2] He also filed a bill of review on the same date requesting the trial court to "find substantial error and set aside as null and void all orders or judgments that were based upon the fallacy that an Estate inventory establishes title, including," the 2019 Judgments, the Turnover Order, and "all other orders or judgments relying on [Inventory 2] as conclusive proof of title."
Next, Thomas appealed the Turnover Order to the Dallas Court, arguing that it "erroneously order[ed] Thomas to turn over to Hoyl sums representing Leah's one-half community property interest in Thomas's Rollover IRA, Roth IRA, U.S. savings bonds, and a Fidelity individual stock account."[3] Estate of Tillotson, No. 05-20-00258-CV, 2021 WL 1034842, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Mar. 18, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). In that second appeal, Thomas argued the following:
(1) as surviving spouse, only he alone may apply for a partition of the community property, which he did not do; (2) as surviving spouse, he is entitled to retain possession and control of all community property that was legally under his management during the marriage; (3) all of the property he was ordered to turn over was his sole management community property; and (4) even assuming Hoyl had the right to apply for partition of Thomas's sole management community property, the Turnover Order does not comply with the Estates Code because it fails to address Thomas's right to statutory deductions.
Id. With respect to the U.S. savings bond, the Dallas Court relied on its earlier opinion to conclude that the trial court "abused its discretion in approving Hoyl's inventory to include Thomas's U.S. savings bonds among the estate's share of community property." Id. at *3. It then focused its analysis on Thomas's arguments relating to his Rollover IRA, Roth IRA, and Fidelity individual stock account. Id.
The Dallas Court found that "Hoyl in her capacity as administratrix could request partition of the community property[, . . .] that the trial court did not err by granting Hoyl's request to partition community property," and that "Thomas d[id] not specify what debts or losses or expenses or commission was not properly deducted." Id. at *3. Even so, it sustained Thomas's argument, raised in a reply brief, that "any decree of partition and distribution . . . must specify that the assets are to be distributed to the decedent Leah[]'s heirs according to their respective shares of the estate, rather than to [Hoyl]."[4] Id. As a result, it reversed the Turnover Order as to Thomas's U.S. savings bonds, modified it "to order Thomas to turn over the designated amounts/values to Leah's heirs or devisees as identified by Hoyl as Administratrix," and affirmed the Turnover Order in all other respects, as modified. Id. at *4. The Dallas Court's mandate issued on June 3, 2021. No petition for review was filed.
Before the mandate issued, and even though the Dallas Court's judgment had already modified and affirmed the Turnover Order, the trial court sent a letter stating that it too would modify the Turnover Order to exclude the U.S. savings bonds in accordance with the Dallas Court's opinion. On June 3, the trial court denied the bill of review. On June 16, although not required due to the Dallas Court's opinion, judgment, and mandate, the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial