Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Estate of Felipe A. Radelat, Deceased
On
Appeal from Probate Court No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial
Court No. 1994-0001187-1-A
Before
Birdwell, Bassel, and Wallach, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Wade
Birdwell, Justice.
Appellee
Lourdes Radelat sued her mother and brother, appellants Ana
and Andrew Radelat, over their handling of an estate matter.
Appellants alleged that the suit was barred by limitations,
but the trial court struck that defense when it rendered
death-penalty sanctions.
On
appeal, appellants cite the rule that before death-penalty
sanctions may issue, the misconduct must justify a
presumption that the sanctioned party's claim or defense
lacks merit. Appellants argue that because Lourdes's suit
was apparently untimely, the merit of their limitations
defense can cut through the severity of any misconduct and
save the case from death-penalty sanctions.
We hold
that appellants' misconduct shows that this limitations
defense lacks merit. The nature of the misconduct-deception
of the court, discovery concealment, and violations of a
temporary injunction, inter alia-goes hand in hand
with a belief that appellants fraudulently concealed the
truth about the estate from Lourdes. In particular,
appellants' efforts to thwart discovery of how they
handled estate matters are relevant to whether they also
concealed estate matters from Lourdes. That fraudulent
concealment has the power to toll limitations, thus
justifying a presumption that the limitations defense lacks
merit. We therefore affirm the death-penalty sanctions.
I.
Background
On
October 29, 2012, Lourdes filed suit against appellants. The
petition explained that Lourdes's father Felipe Radelat
died in March of 1994. In his will, Felipe provided for the
creation of two trusts to contain the bulk of his assets.
According to Lourdes, $600, 000 of the estate's assets
should have been put in the "Family Shelter Trust,"
and the rest should have been put in the "Marital
Deduction Trust." Felipe named his wife Ana as the
executor of his estate, and he named Ana, Lourdes, and his
son Andrew as co-trustees for the trusts. It is undisputed
that between 1994 and 2012, Ana did not fund the trusts.
Lourdes
alleged that she did not know she was meant to be co-trustee
and beneficiary of the trusts; she only discovered this fact
in 2012, when appellants attempted to sell real estate that
rightfully belonged to one of the trusts. Up until that
point, Lourdes said, appellants had withheld the will from
her and misled her about its content. Lourdes alleged that
appellants breached their fiduciary duties by concealing
Felipe's estate plan, failing to properly fund the
trusts, and self-dealing with trust property, among other
misdeeds. Lourdes demanded a statutory accounting for the
trusts.
Appellants
filed a general denial and asserted counterclaims and several
defenses, including limitations. Lourdes responded that
fraudulent concealment should toll limitations. Also, Lourdes
added her son Derek as a plaintiff in an attempt to defeat
limitations. Meanwhile, the trial court granted a temporary
injunction, which restrained appellants from using any funds
belonging to the Family Shelter Trust or impairing the value
of either trust, among other restrictions.
As the
litigation wore on, Lourdes filed a motion to compel
production of certain financial records. The motion was
granted on November 13, 2014.
Two
months later, Lourdes filed a motion for contempt and
sanctions, alleging that appellants had disregarded the trial
court's discovery order and violated the temporary
injunction by collecting rent from a Miami house that
belonged to the Family Shelter Trust. The trial court granted
the motion, assessed attorney's fees of $1, 400, barred
appellants from using financial documents in support of their
claims, and directed appellants to provide an accounting of
any rent received from the Miami property.
Lourdes
later filed a second motion for sanctions that complained of
several more forms of misconduct by appellants. Lourdes
explained that appellants delivered the accounting of rent
seventy days after the court-ordered deadline and that when
it was eventually delivered, the accounting was false. In the
accounting, appellants claimed that they had not received any
rental income from the Miami property. However, Lourdes
submitted documents confirming that appellants had indeed
rented out the property at a rate of $2, 500 per month, with
a $7, 500 moving fee as well. The document explained that
after this rental arrangement ended, appellants had allowed a
friend to live there rent free, without approval of the
court, in exchange for repairs to the property. Lourdes also
submitted documents showing that appellants had listed the
Miami property for sale in violation of the temporary
injunction. Further, Lourdes offered proof that appellants
failed to appear for depositions on multiple occasions, twice
for Ana and three times for Andrew. Finally, Lourdes
submitted an affidavit from her attorney describing how Ana
had consistently malingered in her litigation
responsibilities. Attached were deposition transcripts in
which Ana had repeatedly refused to answer questions even
through an interpreter, claiming that she did not understand
legal matters or the English language despite having lived in
the United States for sixty years. However, the attorney
affiant testified that at other points in her depositions,
Ana had answered questions phrased in English without the aid
of an interpreter, sometimes even responding in English, and
Lourdes also submitted multiple English-language documents
written by Ana. Later, Lourdes submitted testimony from
Ana's former attorney explaining that she had
participated in complex legal matters without the aid of an
interpreter, all of which suggested that Ana did understand
legal matters and the English language after all.
On
December 16, 2015, the trial court ordered appellants to show
cause why they should not be held in contempt. After granting
appellants' request for a continuance, on January 13,
2016, the trial court once again ordered appellants to appear
and show cause. The trial court then suggested and eventually
ordered an independent medical examination of Ana. According
to the trial ...