1 ... T h e d e c e d e n t h a d thr e e o the r ch ild re n , M a ry G ra c e , F ra n k a n d H e le n . M a ry G ra c e a n d F ra n k o b je c te d to

B ill ’s ap p o intm e n t. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 59 9- CV I N T H E MA T T E R O F T H E E S T AT E O F Guillermo G. “Willie” M OR AL ES , Dec ease d Fr om the Probate Court No. 1 , Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 1998-PC-1897 Honora ble Polly J ackson Spenc er, Judge Presiding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Marily n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Febr uary 10, 2010 AFF I RMED Wil liam F. Morales (“Bill”), the independe nt executor of the Estate of Guillermo G. “ Wil lie” Morales, a

ppeals a n order denying him full re imbursement of ex penses he claims wer e incur red on behalf of the e state. We aff

irm the trial cour

t’s order
. B ACKG ROUND Bill Morale s was name d in his father’ s will as the independe nt executor of the estate. Two
o f Bi l l ’s th re e s i b l i n gs 1 objected to his appointment and litig ation ensued ove r his capa city to serve as the indepe ndent executor. Af ter severa l months, the s iblings agr eed to Bill’s appointm ent subject04

- 08

- 00 59 9- CV

- 2- to the restrictions set out in a rule 11 ag ree ment. Bill was g iven the author ity to act as inde pendent executor of the e state, but was not allowe d to take action without the advice of leg al counse l. The ag ree ment provided that a ny action take n without lega l repre sentation “i s n u l l and void and of no eff ect.” Over the cour se of the e state’s a dminist ration, many disag ree ments arose betwee n Bill and his sist er Ma

ry Gra ce. O ne major disagree ment involved the estate ’s primary asset, a 15- acr e tra ct of land . T he pr op e rt

y ha d b e e n u se d a s a sa lva g e y ard by a le sse e wh o fa ile d to re g ist e r t he y ard wi th Te xas C omm iss ion

on Envir onme nta l Q ua lity

(“ T. C.E .Q .” ). B e c a

us e of e nv ir onme nta l pr ob le ms on the prope rty , the estate was re q u i red to clean up the pr operty befor e it could be sold, and the re
wa s d isa g re e me nt r e g ard ing th e pro per way to a c c omp lis h th e c le an u p. Th e re we re a lso disag ree ments over the pr oposed sale of the prope rty . The ra

ncor be tween B i l l an d M ary Gra ce resulted in substantial leg al work a nd numerous conte sted hea ring s. In F e br ua ry of 20 08 , a ft e r t

he pr opert y

wa s so ld a

nd a ll the lit ig atio n w a s r e so lve d, B ill soug ht reimburseme nt for expenses and pay ment of attorney ’s fee s. The reque st f or re imbursement inc lud e d: $ 62 ,5 22 .0 0 in

atto rn e y ’s fe e s for W il li am E g g e r; $2 ,7 04 .0 0 in c ourt re po rt e r’ s f

e e s; $1,000.00 in mileag e expenses; $10,450.00 in compensation to Bill for time awa y from wor k; and $1,549.00 in miscellaneous costs. B ill als o re q u es t ed approva l of pay ment to Mary

Roberts for $8 ,6 21 .0 9 in

atto rn e y ’s fe e s. Mary

Gr a c e ob je c te d to the e state rei mb ursingB ill fo r a ll o f t he se expenses. At the hea

ringon the motion for reimburse ment, Bill testified brief ly and the c ourt took judicial notice of the hear ings a nd order s in t h e ca s e. T h e parties then a g ree d to have the c ourt revie w the docume ntary

evidenc e submitted by Bill and Mary Gra ce to de termine the r eimbursement04

- 08

- 00 59 9- CV

2 ... Pay men t w as a l l owe d f or Rober t s ’ s f

ee s . N o pa r t y s ou g h t r ev i ew of t h at a wa r d.
3 ... B i l l d o es no t co m p l ain ab o ut t he d en i al o f his claim f

o r t he se fees.

- 3- iss ue . The e vid e nc e inc lud e d E g g e r’ s and Rob e rt s’ s f

e e state me nts , c anc e lle d c he c ks , d e po sit sli ps , and estate re cords. After revie wingthe evidenc e the court found “appr ox imately 81.1 hours of Attorne y Eg g er’ s time was spent in the re view and prepa ration of documents perta ining to the environmenta l clean- up of the [ ] 15 acr e trac t of land which pr ovided a be nefit to the estate ” and w ere rec overa ble “a s an
a pp ro pr iate e state e xpe ns e .” As to E g g e r’ s r e ma ini ngfe e s, the tr ia l c ourt fo un d “ it i s n ot p os sib le to determine which of Attorney Eg g er’ s billed e x penses relate to appropriate estate activities” a nd should be denied. 2 Ad d i t i o n al l y , the cour t found the rule 11 a g ree ment limit ed the e x ecutor ’s at t o rney ’s hourly

rate to $100.00; therefor e, Eg g er’ s fee s would be re imbursed in the amount of $8,110.00. The trial court denied Bill’s request for r eimbursement of $1,400.00 for c ourt repor ter fee s, finding the fee s were previously paid from e state funds. The rema ining $1,304.00 in cour t
re po rt e r fe e s we re de nie d be c a us e the y we re no t su

pp or te d by rece ipt s. 3 Bill was r eimbursed $1,000.00 for mil eag e, $1,500.00 for a ca sh advanc ement to the estate and $49.00 f or miscellane ous
e xpe ns e s. Bill filed a motion for pa

rtial new trial and rehe aringand a r equest for finding s of fa ct and conclusions of law . After the trial court denied the motion for new tria l and re hear ing, B ill filed a notice of limited appe al, complainingof the trial c ourt’s par tial reimburseme nt of his attorney ’s fe es and expens es . Af

t er the appea l was filed, the tr ial court made finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law.04

- 08

- 00 59 9- CV

- 4- Bill clai m s t h e t ri al cour t abused its discretion in deny ing his motion for ne w trial and rehe aring . Bill raise s leg al sufficie ncy challeng es, cla iming the e vidence conclusively establishes his entitlement to all of his attorney ’s fee s and court repor ter expenses. He a lso contends the trial court’s f act f indings re g ardingattorney ’s and court repor ter’s f ees a re a g ainst the g reat weig ht and preponde ranc e of the evide n ce
—a cha lleng e to the fa ctual suff iciency of the e vidence
. Ad d i t i o n al l y , Bill argues the rule 11 ag ree ment applied only to the attorney ’s fe es of his for mer
c ouns el at L ane , Ca

nn on & Ta lia fe rr o, L .L .P. ; th e re fo re , th e tr ia l c ourt imp ro pe rl y

lim ite d h is attorney ’s fe e re cover

y to $100.00 an hour.

S TA N D A R D O F REVIEW In an appea l fr o m a bench trial, the trial c ourt’s finding s of fa ct have the same f orce and dig nit y a s a

j ur y ’ s v e r d i c tan d

ar e r e v i e w a

b l e f o r l e g a l an d

f a c tu a l s u f f i c i e n c y un d e r th e s a me sta n d ar d s as ar e applied to the r eview of a jury verdic t. An de rso n v . Ci ty of S e v e n P oin ts , 806 S.W .2d 791, 794 (Tex. 1991). To deter mine whether

there is leg ally

sufficie nt evidence to support
a fi nd ing , w e vie w the e vid e nc e in a light m os t f

avo ra ble to t he fi nd ingand

ind ulg e e ve ry

re a so na ble i n fe re n ce to support it. City of Keller v. W ilson , 1 6 8 S
. W
. 3 d 8 0 2 , 8 2 2 ( T e x. 2 0 0 5 )
. We c re dit fa vo ra ble e vid e nc e if

a re a so na ble fa c t- fi nd e r c ou ld, and dis re g ard

c on tr ary e vid e nc e un less a
rea sonable fac t-finder could not. Id
. at 827. I f there is more than a sc intill a of e vidence to support the finding , the leg al sufficie ncy challeng e fails. Fo rm os a P las tics Co rp . U SA v . Pre sid io E ng ’r s &Contractors, Inc ., 960 S.W .2d 41, 48 (Tex. 1998). More than a scintilla of evidenc e exists “if the
e vid e nce ‘ ri ses t o a

le ve l th at w ou ld e na

ble re a so na

ble and fa ir -m ind e d p e op le to d if fe r i n th e ir conclusions.’” Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway , 1 3 5 S
. W
. 3 d 5 9 8 , 6 0 1 (T ex . 2 0 0 4 )( qu o t i n g Merril Dow Pharm., Inc . v. Hav ner , 953 S.W .2d 706 (Tex. 1997)).04

- 08

- 00 59 9- CV

- 5- When a par

ty attacks the fac tual sufficie ncy of an adver se finding on an issue on which he had the bur den of pr oof, he must demonstrate on appea l that the adverse finding is aga inst the gr eat weig ht and pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Do w Che m. Co. v . F ra nc is , 4 6 S. W. 3 d

2 3 7 , 2 4 2 ( T e x. 2001). We consider

all the evidence an d set aside the judg ment only if it is so contrary

to the
overwhelming w eig ht of the evide nce that it is clea rly wrongand unjust. Cai n v . B ain , 709 S.W .2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). Under either standa

rd of r eview, the trier of

fac t i s t he sole judg e of the
c r e d i b i l i ty o f

th e w i tn e s s e s an d

th e w e i g h t t o b e g i v e nth e i r t e s t i m o n y. McG alliard v. Kuhlmann , 72 2 S. W.2 d 6 94 , 6 96 (T e x. 19 86 ); Raymo n d v. Rahme , 7 8 S. W.3 d 5 52 , 5 56 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 2002, no pet.). We reviewthe trial cour

t’s co n clusions of law de novo. BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W .3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002). Althoug h appellants may not challeng e a tr ial court’s conclusions of lawfor f

actua l suf ficienc y , we may

revie w the trial c ourt’s leg al conc lusions drawn from the f acts to dete rmine whe ther the c onclusions are corr ect. Id
. D I S CUS S I ON A per sonal repr esentative of an estate is entitled to all re asonable expenses upon satisfac tory proof to the court the expenses wer e nece ssarily incurre d in c onnection with the pro ce ed i n gs and manag ement of an e state. T EX . P R OB . C ODE ANN . § 242 (Ve rnon 2003). To be reimbursa ble, the expenses must be incurre d in c onnection with pr eser ving, safe keeping , manag ing a nd distributing the estate of the de cede nt. Id. ; Park v. H ominick, 522 S.W .2d 533, 537 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1974, no writ). L eg itimate e x penses f or the e state’s a dminist ration include mone y paid from the re pr e se ntativ e ’s own f un ds , p ro vid e d the e xpe ns e s we re re a so na ble and inc ur

re d f or the be ne fi t of the e state. Pa rk, 522 S.W .2d at 537.04

- 08

- 00 59 9- CV

- 6- The a war d of attorne y ’s fe es is g rounded in two fact finding s and one le g al conc lusion made by the trial cour

t. First, the trial c ourt found Eg g er spe nt 81.1 hours on m atters that be nefitted the estate a nd wer e re cover able. Sec ond, the trial cour t found that it w as not possible to determine which of Eg g er’ s other fe es re lated to servic es that bene fitted the esta t e. T h i rd , the trial cour t int e rp re te d th e ru le 11 a g re e me nt a nd c on c lud e d r e imb ur sa

ble atto rn e y ’s fe e s w ere li mi ted to $100.00 an hour. Bill ag ree d to have the tr ial co u rt d et er mine his reimbursement r equest ba sed on the fe e statements attac hed to his motion for reimburseme nt and did not have Eg g er te stify at the hea

ring on the motion for re imbursement. Egge r’ s fe e s tatements conta in time entries in excess of 400 hours. The state ments include numerous bloc k time billi ngentries that d o n o t contain suffic ient information t o d e te r

mi n e th e amo un t o f

ti me s p e n t o ne a c ha c ti v it y li s te d o r h o wth e a c ti v it ies benef itted the estate. The time e ntries simply do not adequately

identify which matter s relate to work perf ormed for the pre servation, safeke eping , or mana g ement of the estate a nd what attorne y

time was spent repr esentingBill individually
. The re levant inquiry is whether Bill demonstrate d the fe es we re inc urre d in the prese rvation, safe keeping , and manag ement of the estate. See id. Th e tr ia l c ourt pr e sid e d o ve r e ve ry

he ari ngin this case a

nd took judicial notice of the proc eeding s and orde rs enter ed. The trial court is aw are of the issues in the ca se, the disagree ments betwee n Bill and Mar y Gra ce, the s u b

j ect matter

of the hear ings, a

nd the leg al work that cor re l at ed t o l eg al servic es for Bill’s individual benef

it and that do ne fo r t

he be ne fi t of

the e state . T o p re va il o n h is l e g a l s uff ici enc y c ha lle ng e , B ill mus t demonstrate the evidenc e conclusively established the opposite of the trial c ourt’s finding— all of Eg g er’ s time was for the benef it of the estate. See Ridgway , 135 S.W .3d at 601. The recor d does04

- 08

- 00 59 9- CV

- 7- not support such a conclusion. Nor is the court’s fac t finding ag ainst the overwhelming weig ht of the e vid e nc e . Bi ll fa ile d to mee t his bur de n of pr oo f that the fe e s w e re inc ur re d in c onne c tio n w ith prese rving , safe keeping , manag ing a nd distributing his father ’s estate
. B ill a lso c on te nd s th e tr ial cou rt erre d in c on c lud ingthe ru le 11 a g re e me nt l imi te d h is
re imb ur se me nt f

or Eg g e r’ s atto rn ey ’s fees to $ 10 0. 00 an h our. B ill do e s n ot a rgue the c on tr a c t is ambig uous; rather , he ar g ues the only rea sonable interpretation of the a g ree ment is the $100.00 limit ation applies only

to the law firm of L ane, Gannon, and Taliafe rro L .L .P. In a dispute over the meaningof a c ontrac t, our primary conce rn i s the t rue intent of the pa rties to the contra ct. Se e Pe rry Ho me s v . Cu ll , 2 5 8 S
. W
. 3 d

5 8 0 , 6 0 6 (T ex . 2 0 0 8 ). T o as ce rt ai ni n t en t , we l o o k fi rs tt o th e l an gu age used in the instrument. Id. Contr a ct lan guage t hat c an b e g ive n a de fi nit e or

c e rt a in m e anin gis considere d unambig uous and shoul d be construed by the cour t as a matter

of law. Un iv e rsa l H

e alt h Servs., Inc. v. Renaissance W omen’ s Group, P.A. , 121 S.W. 3d 74 2, 74 6 ( Te x. 20 03 ). Ho we ve r, if the langua g e us e d in the c on tr a c t is c a pa ble of mor e tha n o ne re a so na

ble int e rp re tatio n, an ambi g uit y exis ts and a fa ct issue is raised a s to the parties’ intent. Columbia Gas Tr ansmission Cor p. v. New Ulm Gas, Ltd. , 940 S.W .2d 587, 589 (Tex. 1996). An ambiguity does not exist simply

beca use the parties diff

er in their inter

pretations of the contra ct languag e. In re D. W ilson Cons tr. Co. , 196 S.W .3d 774, 781 (Tex. 2006). Bill relies on two pa

ragraphs in the r

ule 11 agre em en t t o support his argument that the $100.00 fee l i m i t at i on applies only to L ane, G annon & Taliafe rro, L .L .P. The first par ag raph pr ov ide s: All attorney ’s fe es incurr ed up to a nd including the date that Applicant is appointed as I nd epen de nt E xec uto r w ill be pa id t o L ane , G ann on & Ta lia fe rr o, L .L .P. wi thi n thi rt y (3 0) day s o f A

pp lic ant’ s a

pp ointme nt a s Ind e pe nd e nt E xec uto r. Th os e attorney ’s fe es throug hout the rema inder of the administration of the Estate will be04

- 08

- 00 59 9- CV

4 ... B i l l c on t en ds t h e t r i al c ou r t ’ s a wa r d of f ee s t o M ar y Rober t s , B i l l ’ s c ou n s el a t t h e l as t h ea r i n g , w as n ot l i m i t ed t o $ 1 0 0 .0 0 a n h o u r; t heref o re, t he co nt ract did no t l i m i t at t o rney ’ s f ees t o $1 0 0
. 0 0 an hour f o r s ub sequent at t o rney s. N o f

i nd i ngs o f

f act or co ncl usi o ns o f l aw were reque st ed o r m ad e as t o R o b ert ’ s award and no o ne co m p l ai ns o n a p p e a l o f t h e a w a rd
.

- 8- bil le d at an h ourl y

rate of On e Hund

re d Do lla rs ($ 10 0. 00 ) pe r ho ur and wi ll b e pa id fr om Es tate fu

nd s . . . . L ane , Ga

nn on & Ta lia fe rr o, L .L .P. wi ll pr ov ide tim e sh e e ts for a ll attorney

fee s relating to the probating of the Estate incur red f rom the date of Applicant’s a

ppointment as I ndepende nt Ex ecutor until the Estate is closed. The sec ond para g raph at issue pro v ides that Bill “a g ree s to continue reta ining the L ane, G annon & T aliafe rro” , but “if for

any rea son this L aw f

irm is to cease repr es en t ing” Bill, then any actions taken without advice of counsel will be null and void. W hile this provision clearly demonstrates the parties c ontemplated th e possibili ty of re prese ntation by

a diffe rent fir

m, it does not alter the
a g re e me nt’ s li mit

of $1 00 .0 0 p e r h our f

or the e xec uto r’ s at torn e y ’s fe e s. B ill a g re e d to thi s sti pu latio n in

or de r t o b e a

pp ointe d a s in de pe nd e nt e xec uto r. Th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s in te rp re tatio n is
rea sonable a

nd the re imbursement for attorney ’s fe es is limit ed to $100.00 an hour

. 4 Finally , Bill complains the trial c ourt err ed in finding“$1,400.00 of the reque sted Court Reporte r ’ s f

e e s h a d b e e n p a id f

r o m e s tate f

un d s p r e v io u s ly an d th e r e f o r e , th e r e qu est for reimburse ment should be denied.” The que stion is whether there is leg ally and fa ctually

sufficie nt evidenc e to support the cour t’s finding of fa ct. An entry on an accounting sheet submi tted as evidence notes a pay ment to the cour

t reporte r, Che ry l H e ste r, fr om t

he e state ’s a c c ount i n th e amou nt o f $ 1, 40 0. 00 . H ow e ve r, B ill te sti fi e d he pa id He ste r a tot a l of $2 ,7 04 .0 0, wh ic h inc lud e d the $1 ,4 00 .0 0 f or a tr ans c ri pt, fr om h is p e rs on a l f un ds
. Bill produce d a rec eipt for the $1,400.00 pay ment, but the rec eipt does not identify the source of the pa y me nt. B ill relie s o n th e fo llo wi ngno tatio n in Eg g e r’ s b ill ingstate me nt t o s up po rt his reimburse ment claim: “telephone confe re n ce w ith Mr. Morales, a dvising him of the c ost for the04

- 08

- 00 59 9- CV

- 9- transcr ipts of the six (6) he aring s, which he w ill personally g o and pay

Ms. Hester at the cour

t house.” Bi ll also relies on a le tter fr om Hester tha nking him for

pay ment and re fer

ringto “your chec k number 0162.” These doc uments do not indicate the ba nk acc ount fr o m wh i ch Hester wa s paid. The a ccountingsheet re flec ts the $ 1 , 4 0 0.00 pay ment to Hester w as paid fr om the estate’ s
ac co un t
. T h i s i s l ega l l y

s u ff i ci en tev i d en ce t o s u

p p o rtth e t ri al co urt ’s fi n d i n g. In evaluating the f

actua l sufficienc y

of the e vidence , we should not intrude upo n the fa ct finder’ s role as the sole judg e of the weig ht an d cr ed i bility g iven to any

witness’s testimony
. See Transmissi on Exc h. v. Long , 8 21 S.W. 2d 26 5, 27 1 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t D ist .] 19 91 , wri t denied)
. I t is within t he provinc e of the fac t finder to dete rmine what weig ht to give c ontradictory evidenc e. Id . T he fa c t f

ind e r i s e nti tle d to jud g e the c re dib ili ty of the wi tne sse s and

may c ho os e to believe all, some, or none of the testimony

prese nted. Mi lle r v . Ke nd all , 8 0 4 S. W. 2 d 9 3 3 , 9 3 9 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1stDist.] 1990, no writ). Giving defe renc e to the t rial court as t he fa ct finder , we hold that the finding made by the trial court wa s not so contrary to the overwhelming w eig ht of the evidenc e as to be clea

rly wrong an d m anifestly

unjust. There is leg ally and fa ctually

sufficie nt
e vid e nc e to s up po rt

the tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ingthat H e ste r’ s f e e s w e re pr e vio us ly pa id w ithe state fu nd s. The orde r for

reimburse ment of expenses and pa y ment of attorne y ’s fe es is aff irmed.
Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice