I n the re c or d a pp e lla nt re fe rs to him se lf a s Sam Re dd y . F or c lari ty , we wi ll do so a s w e ll. 1 I n addition to acting as the c ourt appointed administrator, Ducloux ser ved as trial counsel 2 for the E state. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00319- CV NO. 03-05-00385- CV

Sat ay ar ay an R e ddy C he r ukula a/k /a S am Re ddy, App e lla nt
v. Est at e of Le sli e Howa r d Spr adl ing , D e c e as e d; and P hili p Du c lou x

as Adm inis trat or, Appellees

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF BASTRO P COUNTY NO. 7909, H ONO RAB LE BENTO N ESKEW , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N AppellantS at ay ar ay an R ed dy C h er u k u l a a / k / a S am Reddy challeng es the trial c ourt’s

1 summary judgme nt in favor of appellee, the Estate of L eslie Howard S pradling(the “ Estate”) . The Estate, by and throug h its court-appointed a dminist rat o r P h i l ip Ducloux, contracted to sell re al pr op e rt y to R e dd y . Re dd y ’s c ontr a c t w a s sub

jec t to the a

pp ro va l of

the B a str op Cou

nty pr ob a te 2
c o u rt. Pr io r

to s e e k in g th e p r o b a te c o u rt’ s a p p r o v a l o f

Re d dy ’ s c o n tr a c t, D u c lo u x e n te red into a second c ontrac t to sell the property to a third-par

ty at a hig her pr ice a

nd on better te rms. Ducloux then presented both contracts simultaneously to the probate court for

approva l. The probate cour t2

re je c te d Re dd

y ’s c on tr a c t, wh ic h c a lle d f or se lle r- fi na

nc ing , a nd or de re d th e pr op e rt

y so ld f or c a sh to the third-par

ty . Reddy

filed a motion for summar y judgme n t claiming that he bec ame the equitable owne r of the pr operty on the date he contra cted to purcha se it from the Estate and, as suc h, he wa s entitled to specific pe rfor mance . Ducloux responded by filing a counter -motion for summary judgme nt in which he ar g ued that Reddy ’s contra ct was une nforc eable due to the lac k of appr oval by th e p r o b a te c o u rt. B e c a u s e w e h o ld th a t Re d dy w a s n o t e n ti tl e d to s p e c if ic p e r f o r ma nce, w e aff irm the probate court’s summar y judgme nt in favor of

the Estate.
BACK GR OUND I n May 2004, Reddy

lease d the Spradling Gene ral Store in Caldwel l C o u n t y from Ducloux. The lease c ontained an option to purch as e t h e p ro p erty for $90,000 in ca sh, which automatically

terminated if D ucloux contract ed t o s ell the prope rty to a third party . I f Duc loux
c on tr a c te d to se ll the pr op e rt y to a thi rd pa rt y , th e le a se gran ted Re dd y a se ve n- da y ri g ht o f f ir st
re fu sa l. T h e l e a s e a l s o s t a t e d , “ T h e p r o p e rt y w i l l b e l i s t e d an d s h o w n f o r s a l e . . . . A n y s a le is
s u b je c t t o c o u rt a

p p r o v a l w h ic h I w il l mak e a ll r e a s o n a b le e f f o rts to o b ta in
. ” T h e le a s e w a s f o r a s ixmon th t e rm

be g inn ing June 1, 20 04
. I n N ov e mbe r 2 00 4, the Es tate a g re e d to e xten d Re dd y ’s le a se fo r a no the r s ix mon ths
.

On Janu ary 28 , 200 5, Re dd

y and Du c lou x en te re d in to a

wr itt e n c on tr a c t f

or the sa le of the pr op e rt

y to Re dd y fo r $90 ,0 00
. Th e wr itt e n co ntr a c t ca lle d for Re dd y to p ay $1 5, 00 0 in

c a sh
a t c los ingand

the re ma ini ng$7 5, 00 0 o ve r t he c ours e of

the fo llo wi ngy e ar, whi le the p ur c ha se option c alled for

$90,000 in cash. Thus, this was not an e x erc ise of Reddy ’s option. See Zeidman

v . D av is , 342 S.W .2d 555, 558 (Tex. 1961) (optionee is he ld to strict compliance with terms of3

option ag ree ment). Upon signing the contra ct, Reddy tender ed $5,000 in ear nest money . Ducloux
a c c e pte d th e c on tr act , s ub je c t to a pp ro va l by

the pr ob a te c ourt . T he c on tr a c t r e qu ir e d D uc lou x to
se e k p ro mpt ly

the pr ob a te c ourt ’s a

pp ro va l. Be fore Reddy ’s contra ct had be en pre sented to t he probate cour t, Ducloux receive d
a sec ond contra ct on Fe bruar y 5 from Wesley

Dre nner, w ho offe red t o p u rc h ase the proper ty for $99,500 in cash. Duc loux acc epted Drenne r’s contract, conditioned on court approval and subje ct to Reddy ’s seve n-day

rig ht of first re fusal. Reddy did not match Dre nner’ s offe r. I n ear ly Fe bruar y , Ducloux subm itted both contrac ts to th e p robate court see king permission to sell the property to either Reddy

or Dre nner. The proba t e co urt held a he aringon Fe bruar y 22 to de termine which contra ct to a pprove. A t the hear ing, the probate court took judicial
no tic e of a ll the pr ior

pr oc e e dings p ert aini ngto t he pr ob a te of

the Es tate and

sp e c if ic a lly
a c kn ow le dg e d th a t “ the be ne fi c iari e s d o n ot g e t a lon g .” Th e pr ob ate cou rt state d f ur the r t hat it “would not b e h ap p y about any offe r that re quired the pa rties [the Estate’s bene ficiar ies] to act toge ther in any

thing.” The probate cour t conclude d t h at i t woul d be inappr opriate to a pprove Reddy ’s contra ct, which r equire d seller financ ing, beca use the benef

iciarie s would be for ced to a ct joi ntl y if so me thi ngwe re to g o wr on g . Ho we ve r, the pr ob a te c ourt a c kn ow le dg e d th a t Re dd

y sh ou ld have an o pp or

tun ity to r e a c h a

n a g re eme nt “that do e s n ot i nv olv e se lle r f ina nc ing , s o th a t th e se be ne fi c iari e s c an c oll e c t thei r m on e y and be ou t.” Con se qu e ntl y , th e pr ob a te c ourt re je c te d b oth contra cts and de clar ed: [Y] ou [t he Estate] can enter tain other offe rs throug h 5:00 p.m. F ebrua ry 28th. You ar e au t h o ri z edt o ac ce p tan y co n t ra ct as l o n g as i td o es n o ti n v o l v e s el l er fi n an ci n g, and is o the rw ise un c on dit ion a l.I n h is or ig ina l pe tit ion , Re dd y a sse rt e d th a t ve nu e is p ro pe r i n Ca ldw e ll Co un ty be c a us e 3 t h e c o n t e s t e d

p r o p e rt y i s l o c a t e d

i nt h a tc o u n t y. 4 The pa rties re submitt ed their bids and, on Ma rch 3, the probate court order ed that the prope rty be
so ld t o D r e n n e r

b a s e d o ni t s f i n d i n g t h a t“ t h e c o n tr a c tf o r c a s h i s m o r e a dv an t a g e o u s t o t h e e s t a te and it would be in the estate’s best intere st to order the s ale for cash only and unconditionally at the highe st price pe nding a s of Fe bruar y 28, 2005 at 5:00 o’cloc k p.m.” Reddy filed a motion reque sting t h e p r o b a t e c o u rtt o s e ta s i d e i t s o r d e r o f s a l e ; t h e p r o b a t e c o u rtd e n i e d t h e m o t i o ni ne ar l y M ay. Me anw hil e , th e da

y a ft e r t he pr ob a te c ourt

ann ounc e d it s int e nti on to a pp ro ve on ly a contr act f

or a c ash purc hase, Reddy filed suit in Caldwell County district co u rt al leg ing that Ducloux anticipatorily

brea ched the contra ct with Re ddy by ag ree ing to se ll the property to Drenne r. 3 Re ddy claimed f urther that Ducloux t ortiously interfe red w ith his contract. Reddy reque sted an orde r of specific perf

ormanc e, an order enjoining Ducloux fr om c onveying or attempting to c onvey the pr op e rt y to a nyon e oth e r t

ha n Re dd y , e xemp l a

r y d a m a g e s , a tt o r n e y ’ s f e e s and po st- jud g me nt i nte re st. Du c lou x fil e d a

ple a in a bate me nt c ha lle ng ingthe jur isd ic tio n o f t he Ca ldw e ll Co un ty

dis tr ic t c ourt , moved to transfe r venue to the Ba strop County probate co u rt an d g ener ally denied Reddy ’s al leg ations. I n addition, both Reddy and Duc loux filed motions for summary judgme nt. After a hear ing, the Cald we l l County district court found that the B astrop County probate court ha d jurisdiction over the a ction and, conse quently , g rante d the motion to transfer ve nue.

On M ay 23, the probate court held a hearing on the competing summary -judg ment mot ion s. Re dd

y argue d that he be c a me the e qu ita ble ow ne r o f t

he pr op e rt y a s so on a s h e e nte re d in to the wr itt e n c on tr a c t to purc ha se it fr om the Es tate
. Con se qu e ntl y , he ins ist e d that he w a s e nti tle d to5

sp e c if ic pe rf or manc e as a matte r o f l aw. Re dd y a lso c on te nd e d th a t hi s c on tr a c t di d n ot p e rm it Du c lou x to de lay se e kin g the pr ob a te c ourt ’s a pp ro va l w hil e he e nte rt a ine d o ff e rs fr om t hir d p art ie s. F i n a l l y, R e d dy s u g g e s t e d

t h a tt h e c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n r e qu i r i n g p r o b a t e c o u rta p p r o v a l w a s m e r e l y a promise to perf

orm and not a c ondition prece dent. Ducloux maintained that Reddy was not entitled to specific perf

o rm an ce beca

use his contra ct was subjec t to probate c ourt approva l, a condition pr e c e de nt t

hat ha d n ot o c c ur

re d. Du c lou x als o d isp ute d Re dd y ’s a sse rt ion that he fa ile d to pr omp tly prese nt Reddy ’s contra ct to the probate cour t. The probate cour

t a g ree d with D ucloux and a sserted, “[T] here could not have be en any equitable owner ship unless there wa s court appr oval.” On June 20 , th e pr ob a te c ourt

iss ue d it s f

ina l ju dg me nt d e c lari ngthe c on tr a c t be tw e e n Re dd y and the Es tate “null and void for f

ailure of a condition pr ece dent.” The probate court g rante d Ducloux’s moti on for summary judgme nt and ordered that Reddy take nothing from the Estate. This appea l followed.
STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW We r e vie w the summa

ry jud g me nt de novo
. Va le nc e Op e ra tin g Co . v . D or se tt , 164 S.W. 3d 65 6, 66 1 ( Te x. 20 05 ). To pr e va il o n a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt, the mov ant m us t show that no g enuine i s sue of mate rial fa ct exist s and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pr ov ide nt Life & Ac c ide nt I ns . Co . v . Kn ott , 1 2 8 S. W. 3 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 5
- 1 6 ( T e x. 2 0 0 4 ) ( c it in g T e x. R. C iv. P. 166 a (c ))
. Whe n re vie wi ng a summa ry jud g me nt, we take a s tr ue a ll e vid e nc e fa

vo ra ble to the nonmovant, and we indulge ever y rea sonable infe renc e an d re solve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. Valence , 164 S.W .3d at 661. W hen, as he re, both pa rties move for

summary judgme nt and the cour

t gr ants one motion and denies the ot her, we review the summary -judg ment evidenc e pre sented by

both sides, determine a ll questions pre s e nte d , a n d rende r the judg ment the trial6

court s h o uld have r ender ed. Texas W orkers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Patient Advoc ates of Tex. , 136 S.W. 3d 64 3, 64 8 ( Te x. 20 04 ); FM Pr op s. Op e ra tin g Co . v . Ci ty of A us tin , 2 2 S. W. 3 d

8 6 8 , 8 7 2 ( T e x. 2000).
DI SCU SSIO N

I n two issues, Reddy

contends that he is entitled to specific perf ormanc e bec ause ( 1) he wa s the equitable ow ner of the proper

ty as of the date of his contra ct; and (2) Ducloux viol ated the contra ct by

not pr omptly

seekingthe probate cour

t’s approva l of the sale a

nd by enter ing into a
s e c o n d c o n t r a c tt o s e l l t h e p r o p e rt y. I n Re dd y ’s fi rs t is su e , h e c la ims that he be c a me the e qu ita ble ow ne r o f t

he pr op e rt

y
w h e nh e c o n tr a c te d

to p u r c h a s e th e p r o p e rty , c it in g th e d o c tri n e o f e qu it a b le c o n v e r s io n . We disag ree . Reddy

relies on Pa rso n v . W

olf e , 676 S.W .2d 689 (Tex. A pp.—Amarillo 1984, no writ), for the pr oposition t hat a buy er be comes the e quitable owner of the subject proper

ty at the time the parties e nter into a c ontrac t. The Parson court stated that “the pivotal questi on” when deter mining wh e the r a n e qu ita ble c on vers io n by

c on tr a c t ha s o c c ur

re d is wh e the r t

he c on tr a c t is sp e c if

ic a lly enfor cea ble. Id . at 69 2; see also Travis Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Signature Flight Support Corp. , 140 S.W. 3d 83 3, 84 0 ( Te x. Ap p. —Au st in 2 00 4, no pe t.) (d e fi nin g e qu ita ble tit le a s p re se nt r ig ht t o compel leg al title). The Parson court c oncluded that the doc trine of e quit ab l e co n version wa s applicable beca

use it found that the contract at issue was “ proper ly executed and c ontain[ed] all of the provisions nece ssary in or der for it to be bindingon, and spec ifically enfor cea ble by , either the sellers or the buy er.” Parson , 676 S.W .2d at 692.Although the final judg ment states that the contr act i s null and void “for f ailure of a 4 c on dit ion pr e c e de nt, ” the pr ob a te c od e c le arl y re qu ir e s cou rt a pp ro va l bef

or e tit le to p ro pe rt

y he ld in an est ate may

be tra nsfer red; thus, we ne ed not addr ess Reddy ’s claim that the c ontrac tual pr ov isi on su bje c tin g the sa le to c ourt

a pp ro va l is no t a

c on dit ion

pr e c e de nt. Re dd y a lso c la ims tha

t hi s e nti tle me nt t o s pe c if

ic pe rf or manc e e xten ds to t

hir d p art ie s w ith notice of his cla im. Bec ause w e hold that Reddy is not entitled to specific pe rfor mance , we do not addre ss this i ssue. 7

The doc trine of equitable conver sion is not applica ble in the instant case . Upon the execution of Reddy ’s contract, something other than the pay ment of money

rema ined to be done befor e it could be spe cifica lly enfor ced. Both a probate court’s order and a de cre e conf irming the
sa le of the pr op e rt

y and a uth or izin g its c on ve y anc e to t he purc ha se rs we re ne c e ssa ry fo r a va lid transfe r fr om the Estate. See Te x. Pr ob . Co de Ann. §§ 33 1, 35 5 ( Wes t 20 03 ); see also Andrews v. Koch , 702 S.W .2d 584, 586 (Tex. 1986). Title ca nnot pass without the order a nd confirmation. See An dr e ws , 70 2 S.W. 2d a t 58 6. Ad dit ion a lly , Re dd y ’s c on tr a c t e xplic itl y

c on te mpl a te d th a t th e sa le was subjec t to the approva l of the probate court. Section 11, titled “Special Provisions,” subsection A, states, “T HI S CONTRACT I S SUBJ ECT TO APP ROVAL BYTHE B ASTROP C OUNTY PRO B AT E CO UR T. SEL L ER S HA L L PRO MPT L Y SEE K SUC H APP RO VA L .” B e c a us e bo th the statutory

require ments of the probate code an d t h e clea r languag e of the contra ct re quired appr o v a l b y th e p r o b a te c o u rt, an d s u c h a p p r o v a l h a d n o t b e e n g iv e n , th is c o n tr a ct was not specific ally

enfor cea ble. Consequently , equitable title a nd the rig ht to the pr operty did not pass here
. See Parson , 676 S.W .2d at 692.

We overrule Reddy ’s first issue. 48 In R e d dy’ s s e c o n d i s s u e , h e i n s i s t s t h a tD u c l o u x b r e a c h e d h i s p r o m i s e t o “ p r o mp t l y” seek a pproval fr om the probate court. B asica lly , he ar g ues that th e p ro b at e co u rt would have
a pp ro ve d h is c on tr a c t if

Du c lou x ha d p re se nte d it pr omp tly and ind e pe nd e nt o f a

ny oth e r c on tr a c ts. Th is co nte nti on is d e fe a te d b y the pr ob a te c ourt ’s de c laratio n th a t a se lle r- fi na

nc e d c on tr a c t w ou ld not be in the best intere st of benef iciarie s who were unable to ge t along . Moreove r, we find no langua g e in Re dd

y ’s c on tr a c t lim iti ng Du c lou x’s ri g ht to su bmi t mul tip le c on tr a c ts s imu lta ne ou sly and to allow the pr obate c ourt to decide which one is in t he Estate’ s best interest. Nor has Reddy alleg ed that Ducloux made any repr esentation that he would obtain a r uling f rom the probate cour

t on Reddy ’s contract before acc epting and presenting other contracts. As the Est ate’ s administrator, Ducloux had a statutory

and fiduc iary

duty to protec t the i ntere sts of t he Estate’s benef iciarie s, not Reddy
. See , e.g. , Te x. Pr ob . Code Ann. § 2 30 (We st 2 00 3) ; In re Estate of He ad , 165 S.W .3d 897, 902 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.). The only aff irmative promise made to Re ddy was that Ducloux would promptl y seek the probate cour

t’s approva l. Ducloux accepte d the sec ond offe r onl y eig ht day s after Reddy ’s offe r. Du c lou x ar g ue d at th e summ ary -j ud g me nt h e ari ngthat he so ug ht a nd ob ta ine d th e e arl ie st pr a c tic a ble date fo r a

he ari ngon

his a pp lic a tio ns to s e ll the pr op e rt y to R e dd y or Dr e nn e r; Re dd

y did not present any

summary -judg ment evidenc e sug g esting otherwise. T he hea ring took place le ss than a month afte r Reddy

opted to purcha se the prope rty
. Acc ording ly , we cannot hold a s a matter of law that the Ducloux bre ache d his c ontrac tual obligation to seek prompt approva l of Reddy ’s contra ct from the pr obate c ourt. We overr ule Reddy ’s sec ond issue.9 CO NC LU SION We affir m the probate court’s summar y judgme nt in favor of

the Estate.

__________________________________________ Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Affir med Filed: Apr il 14, 2006