X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant, Lainee Jeanelle Hubbard, as administrator of her father’s estate, appeals the trial court’s order granting two no-evidence motions for summary judgment in favor of the appellee, Suzie Shankle. The appellant complains that the trial court erred by granting the appellee’s first and second motions for summary judgment, by rendering judgment that appellant take nothing, and by overruling appellant’s motion for new trial. HOLDING:Affirmed. The appellant failed to present evidence to raise a fact issue as to whether there was a valid contract between the decedent and the appellee. The appellee testified in her deposition that the decedent had stated that he wanted the appellee’s social security number so that he could name her as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. He said he was changing the beneficiary designation because he wanted her to have the money and to take care of his daughter’s college. He never told her what the policy was worth, nor did he specify how much of the proceeds should go to his daughter or appellee in the event of his death. The appellee did not know whether the decedent had actually made her the beneficiary of the life insurance policy until after his death. There can be no valid contract based upon these facts because there was no bargained-for exchange. The appellant failed to raise a question of fact as to whether promissory estoppel could apply because she failed to show that the decedent relied to his detriment upon any promise by appellee on the part of appellee regarding the beneficiary designation. The appellee and the decedent were clearly involved in a romantic relationship. Although the relationship between a husband and wife is ordinarily a fiduciary relationship, the appellant failed to present any evidence that raised a fact issue on whether a fiduciary relationship existed between the decedent and the appellee. Additionally, the appellant presented no evidence to raise a fact issue on whether the appellee breached a legal or equitable duty owed to the decedent. The appellant asserts that the appellee promised to act as trustee for the daughter regarding the proceeds of the life insurance policy. The court sees no evidence that the appellee promised anything to the decedent. Accordingly, even while viewing all the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the appellant, the court holds that she did not present any evidence that raises a question of fact regarding her claim of constructive fraud. The appellant further argues that the decedent established an express education trust for the benefit of his daughter. The appellant did not present any evidence to raise a fact issue regarding the decedent’s intent to create a trust. In Brault v. Bigham, 493 S.W.2d 576 (Tex. App. � Waco 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.), the trial court imposed a trust on life insurance proceeds held by the named beneficiary under an insurance policy for the benefit of four children and removed the beneficiary as trustee. The appellate court affirmed, stating that a trust may be impressed upon life insurance proceeds that are in the hands of a named beneficiary, and proof of the trust may be made by parol evidence. However, the Brault opinion does not indicate that the beneficiaries complained on appeal about the decedent’s lack of intent to form a trust in the first place, as is the case here. The court distinguishes Brault from the case at bar because the court holds that, here, appellant presented no evidence raising a fact issue on the decedent’s intent to create a trust. When title to property is taken in the name of someone other than the person who advances the purchase price, a resulting trust is created in favor of the payor. Nolana Dev. Ass’n v. Corsi, 682 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. 1984). It is an “intent trust” employed when trust property had been used for a special purpose which has terminated or become frustrated so that the law implies a trust for the equitable owner of the property. Even while viewing all the evidence presented in the light most favorable to appellant, the court holds that she did not present any evidence that raises a question of fact regarding her claim for the imposition of a resulting trust. The appellant failed to present any evidence that raises a question of fact regarding her claims of unjust enrichment or quasi-contract. OPINION:Terrie Livingston, J.; Cayce, C.J.; Livingston and Walker, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.