Kramer v. Kastleman
| Decision Date | 27 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. 14–1038,14–1038 |
| Parties | Lisa KRAMER, f/k/a Lisa Kastleman, Petitioner, v. Bryan KASTLEMAN, Respondent |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Joseph P. Webber, Law Offices of Joseph P. Webber, Wallace B. Jefferson, Rachel Anne Ekery, Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP, Austin TX, William Leslie Shireman, William B. Connolly, Connolly & Shireman, LLP, Houston TX, for Petitioner.
Craig T. Enoch, Enoch Kever PLLC, Robert D. Ettinger, Law Office of Robert D. Ettinger, Austin TX, for Respondent.
The acceptance-of-benefits doctrine precludes a litigant from challenging a judgment after voluntarily accepting the judgment's benefits: "A litigant cannot treat a judgment as both right and wrong."1 Applying this estoppel-based equitable doctrine,2 the court of appeals dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging the property-division and child-welfare provisions of a final divorce decree.3
We last examined the acceptance-of-benefits doctrine more than sixty-five years ago in Carle v. Carle , which is the only time we have applied the doctrine in a marital-dissolution case.4 We granted review in this case because, in the intervening years, the doctrine has been applied irregularly and has become unmoored from its equitable underpinnings. Though "exceptions" have arisen to ameliorate harshness that would otherwise result from rigid application of the doctrine, the jurisprudence trends away from the doctrine's root principles. The trajectory toward a rigid and formulaic application of the doctrine is acutely problematic in marriage-dissolution cases because divorce decrees routinely divide assets in which a party's right to possession and control preceded the final decree.
This case presents the opportunity to clarify that the acceptance-of-benefits doctrine is a fact-dependent, estoppel-based doctrine focused on preventing unfair prejudice to the opposing party. Under this doctrine, a merits-based disposition may not be denied absent acquiescence in the judgment to the opposing party's irremediable disadvantage. Though matters of equity are seldom amenable to unyielding principles and inflexible rules, several factors inform the equitable inquiry. Because those factors do not favor an estoppel in this case, we reverse the court of appeals' judgment and remand the cause to that court for further proceedings.
The nine-year marital union of Lisa Kramer and Bryan Kastleman produced one child and a $30 million marital estate. Two years into the parties' acrimonious and expensive marriage-dissolution proceedings, they executed two agreements settling all issues. One agreement concerned their child, and the other divided the marital estate.5 The day after the final agreement was executed, the trial court held a brief evidentiary hearing on the divorce petitions. At the hearing, Kastleman testified the conservatorship agreement was in the child's best interest and the property division was a fair and equitable division of the marital estate.6 The trial court orally approved the settlement agreements and granted the divorce petitions.
More than a year passed before the trial court's rulings were reduced to writing in a final divorce decree. Before that happened, however, Kramer revoked her consent and moved to set aside the parties' property agreement, arguing it was fraudulently and coercively procured. Among other accusations, Kramer alleged Kastleman had forged her signature on financial and real-estate documents and concealed significant assets, vitiating her consent and creating an inequitable division of the marital estate.
Kastleman responded with a motion to enter judgment and a motion for sanctions and attorney fees, asserting Kramer's claims were false, preexisted the settlement agreement, and were based on information disclosed to her in the pre-settlement discovery process. Kastleman also complained that Kramer had been dilatory in challenging the settlement agreement, waiting nearly a year to challenge the agreement. Kastleman claimed that, following the court's oral approval of the agreement, (1) he sold property awarded to him, and (2) Kramer collected rental income of more than $20,000 per month from interests allocated to her in the property settlement agreement, refinanced loans secured by those income-producing properties (to remove his name from the loans as required by the settlement agreement), and took cash as part of the refinancing.
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court sanctioned Kramer for filing a frivolous, bad-faith, and harassing motion. The court awarded Kastleman more than $32,000 in attorney fees plus conditional appellate attorney fees.7 Shortly thereafter, the court rendered a final divorce decree.
Kramer filed several post-judgment motions challenging the decree and sanctions order. In addition to her previously asserted grievances, Kramer complained that the child-support and child-custody provisions in the final decree materially deviated from the parties' agreement. The trial court corrected the divorce decree in certain respects and modified the conditional appellate attorney fees awarded in the sanctions order, but substantially denied Kramer the relief she sought. The corrected final decree incorporates by reference the parties' settlement agreement. Kramer's second motion for new trial was denied.
On appeal, Kramer argued that (1) the settlement agreement was invalid and the trial court erred in enforcing it, (2) the terms of the decree pertaining to the parties' child did not conform to the settlement agreement, (3) the sanctions award was improper, and (4) the trial court erred in awarding additional attorney fees to Kastleman in the order denying her new-trial motion. Shortly before filing a responsive brief, Kastleman moved to dismiss Kramer's appeal under the acceptance-of-benefits doctrine. Kastleman argued Kramer is estopped from challenging the corrected final divorce decree because (1) she had been collecting at least $20,000 per month in rental income from property awarded to her in the decree, and (2) immediately after filing a motion to set aside the settlement agreement, she attempted to "enforce" it during a hearing by requesting an opportunity to retrieve personal property allocated to her (dishes, china, and a dining room table and chairs) from a condominium allocated to Kastleman, which had been vacated in connection with its impending sale.8 Kastleman argued Kramer was under no financial duress when she accepted these benefits because she had access to bank and brokerage accounts with substantial balances.
The court of appeals granted Kastleman's motion and dismissed the entire appeal without reaching the merits.9 The court held Kramer was barred from pursuing her appeal because she accepted the divorce decree's benefits. The court found no evidence Kramer had actually taken possession of personal property under the decree, but it was undisputed that she accepted at least $20,000 per month in rental proceeds.10 The court also noted that Kramer had refinanced the rental property.11 Though the divorce decree required Kramer to refinance those properties under threat of forced sale, the court equated her compliance with "seek[ing] and obtain[ing] legal title to real property awarded in the judgment" and held that "[a] party accepts the benefits of a judgment when she seeks and obtains legal title to real property awarded in the judgment."12 The court further cited as binding a trial-court finding that Kramer had accepted more than $1 million in assets and funds since executing the settlement agreement.13
In dismissing the appeal, the court said Kramer failed to establish any exception to the doctrine's application. The court held that a "cash benefits" exception to estoppel did not apply because Kramer, by accepting $20,000 per month in rental proceeds and refinancing the properties, necessarily accepted the real property from which the rental proceeds derived.14 The court rejected any claim of economic necessity as inadequately briefed by Kramer, lacking evidentiary support, and contrary to evidence "that she was awarded substantial assets in addition to the ... rental property, which generated more than $20,000 per month in funds."15 Though Kramer did not argue a third exception that applies when the appealing party's right to the benefits accepted could not be affected by the judgment's reversal, the court said the exception did not apply absent a guarantee Kramer would be awarded the same property she had accepted if she prevailed in her quest for a redivision of the marital estate.16
The court did not address whether it was conceivable that a just and right division would actually result in Kramer being awarded assets valued at less than any benefits she had accepted; rather, the court found it dispositive that division of marital property may simply differ on remand. This, of course, is always the case when remand is required based on a material error affecting the trial court's just-and-right property division; a party could always get more, less, or different.17 The court also did not consider whether Kastleman had been disadvantaged by Kramer's acts of dominion over marital property and afforded no weight to evidence Kramer could restore the benefits accepted in the event of remand for a just-and-right division.
In a supplemental opinion on rehearing, the court refused to partially reinstate the appeal as to the sanctions, attorney-fees, child-support, and child-custody issues, holding Kramer failed to address severability of those issues in response to Kastleman's motion to dismiss.18
On petition for review to this Court, Kramer contends dismissal of an appeal is not appropriate unless a spouse's acceptance of benefits under a divorce decree prejudiced the other spouse or the spouse has otherwise clearly acquiesced in the judgment. In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lalonde v. Gosnell
...litigants from taking contradictory positions as a means of gaining an unfair advantage from the inconsistency." Kramer v. Kastleman , 508 S.W.3d 211, 217 (Tex. 2017). It "generally prevents one party from misleading another to the other's detriment or to the misleading party's own benefit.......
-
BPX Operating Co. v. Strickhausen
...in settlement negotiations with BPX throughout the disputed period.9 This is consistent with our recognition in Kramer v. Kastleman , 508 S.W.3d 211, 213 (Tex. 2017), that determining whether a litigant who voluntarily accepts the benefits of a judgment is precluded from challenging the jud......
-
In re Nash
...litigants from taking contradictory positions as a means of gaining an unfair advantage from the inconsistency." Kramer v. Kastleman , 508 S.W.3d 211, 217 (Tex. 2017) (quoting Matlow v. Cox , 25 Tex. 578, 580–81 (1860) ).[B]efore denying a merits-based resolution to a dispute, courts must e......
-
Guerra v. L&F Distribs., LLC
...litigants from taking contradictory positions as a means of gaining an unfair advantage from the inconsistency." Kramer v. Kastleman , 508 S.W.3d 211, 217 (Tex. 2017). However, "as long as an appellant ‘accepts only that which appellee concedes, or is bound to concede, to be due him under t......
-
Chapter 16-12 Estoppel
...(Tex. 2009).[111] Moore v. Neff, 629 S.W.2d 827, 829 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.).[112] Kramer v. Kastleman, 508 S.W.3d 211, 218 (Tex. 2017) (citing Carle v. Carle, 234 S.W.2d 1002, 1002-5).[113] Kramer v. Kastleman, 508 S.W.3d 211, 228 (Tex. 2017).[114] Kramer v......