No. 05-15-00589-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 

FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT DALLAS 

Estate of Alan Morgan Humphrey, Deceased 

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3 

 Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No PR-13-02943

BRIEF OF APPELLANT 

Denna M. Shaw 

Pro Se 

3650 Asbury 

Dallas, TX 75205

(P) 214.219.1312

denna3644@yahoo.com

APPELLANT 

Oral Argument Requested 

ACCEPTED

05-15-00589-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

11/25/2015 11:45:27 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 11/25/2015 11:45:27 PM LISA MATZ Clerk
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

1. Plaintiff/Appellant: Denna M. Shaw

Trial counsel: None

Appellate counsel: None

2. Defendants/Appellees: Roger Humphrey

George Abney 

Trial counsel: Brandy Baxter Thompson

Calloway, Norris, Burdette & Weber, PLLC

3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 400

Dallas, Texas 75219

Nathan Griffin

D. Woodard Glenn, P.C.

2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 510

Dallas, TX 75204

Appellate counsel: Unknown

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL............................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................ iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................... v

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ................................. vii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................... viii

ISSUES ON APPEAL ............................................................................. x

STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................... 9

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES ....................................................... 10

.......................................................................................... 29

PRAYER ................................................................................................... 29

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE............................................................ 33

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE......................................................... 33

Iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases

In the Estate of Joseph T. Marek, II,

No. 05-13-01008-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (mem. op) .................. 

Fitzgibbon v. Hughes 

No. 04-13-00261-CV, (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014)(mem. op.) ........ 

Vickery v. Am. Youth Camps, Inc., 

532 S.W. 2nd 292 (Tex. 1976) (per curiam).......................................

Rules

Texas Rules of Professional Conduct

Vi

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellant respectfully requests oral argument. Appellant believes that the 

opportunity for to be heard and answer questions would better help the 

Court to address the issues. Appellant feels that she would be better able 

to discuss her argument as opposed to writing it in a form unfamiliar to her. 
ii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

After the death of Alan M. Humphrey, Appellant Denna Shaw (Shaw) filed a 

Petition for Declaratory Judgement and Application for Preliminary 

Injunction (CR5-) Shaw sought a judgment that she was the spouse of Alan 

M. Humphrey. Shaw‘s attorney never asked the court to approve the 

Injunction.

Roger Humphrey, brother to Alan M. Humphrey, filed a response denying 

that Denna M. Shaw was the wife of Alan Humphrey or that she was 
entitled to any ownership of the estate outside of what was left to her in 

Alan Humphrey‘s Last Will and Testament. (CR-24) The executor, George 

Abney did not participate in this action. 

The executor and Humphrey ignored the claim against the estate and 

proceeded to administer the estate as they saw fit even though there was a 

claim against the estate. 

The case was set for trial, but due to Shaw‘s mother becoming ill and the 

trial was postponed until July 21, 2014. On July 21, 2014, Shaw came 

ready for trial, but was railroaded into accepting what she now knows is a 

purported family settlement agreement. The purported agreement was read 

into the record and included a contingency and time to accept from a 

beneficiary who was not a party to the suit, G. Alex Carlson. One named 

beneficiary, Scott Humphrey, was totally left out of the agreement and not 

mentioned at all in the discussion on the record.

The court did not at that time render judgment. (CR-54 lines 5-20)

Mr. Carlson declined to accept their offer by the time required. Carlson sent 

his refusal to accept the purported agreement by email to Roger 

Humphrey‘s attorney, by email on August 20, 2014. (CR-68-70) and hired 

his own attorney. 

Roger Humphrey then filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment Based on 
Settlement Agreement. (CR 29) Thereafter Shaw filed a Motion to 

Withdraw Settlement Agreement. (CR 62) Shaw‘s attorney withdrew at the 

end of July 2014. 

Kevin Spencer filed their notice of appearance on behalf of George 

Alexander Carlson (Carlson) on September 25, 2014. (CR-72) Shortly after 

Roger Humphrey filed a Supplement to Defendant‘s Original Answer to 

Plaintiff‘s Original Petition, Counterclaim, and request for Disclosure, 

adding a claim for Breach of Contract. (CR-74-80)

During a hearing the trial court did not know if the purported settlement 

agreement could be enforced and asked the attorney‘s to brief the issue. 

Spencer Law filed their brief (CR-105-111) but opposing counsel did not. 

A trial was scheduled for January 2015, but notice was not sent to 

Carlson‘s attorney of record. Once Carlson‘s attorney found out about the 

hearing and lack of notice, they filed a Plea in Intervention on Carlson‘s 

behalf, which was followed by a Motion to Strike by Roger Humphrey‘s 

attorney. (CR-150) The Motion was granted by the court. At trial, the court 

ruled against Shaw. A final judgment was signed on February 10, 2015. 

Following the granting of the judgment, Shaw filed a Motion for New Trial. 

(CR-185-227) Notice of Appeal to the 5th Court of Appeals was filed on 
May 8, 2015. (CR-228) 

The appellate record consists of the electronically filed one volume Clerk‘s

Record, consecutively numbered pages 1 – 242 and the electronically 

filed three volume Reporter‘s Record.

ISSUES ON APPEAL

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in enforcing a purported settlement 

agreement when the conditions precedent to formation were not 

performed?

Did the trial court abuse its discretions when enforcing a purported 

settlement agreement that was not in strict or literal compliance with the 

agreement read into the record?

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in enforcing a purported family 

settlement agreement in a probate matter when all parties were not in 

agreement?
Did opposing counsel make statements in pleadings which they knew were 

misleading, untruthful and not based on facts? Did this cause harm to 

Shaw? 

Did the trial court deny Shaw her right to put on her case? Were Shaw‘ due 

process rights denied? 

Did the trial court abuse its discretion when G. Alex Carlson was denied his 

right to intervene and be heard as an interested party?

X

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Alan M. Humphrey, husband of Denna M. Shaw completed 

suicide on April 20, 2013. Shaw discovered his body. Shaw was in total 

shock. Humphrey had been ill for some time (he was granted disability in 

2008) and on a large amount of medication for chronic pain, which caused 

him to be housebound and bedridden for months at a time. Due to his 

illness and inability to function normally, Shaw looked after Humphrey‘s 
needs. Humphrey‘s family knew he was fragile and on medication. 

2. It should be noted that Roger Humphrey and Alan Humphrey were

not close and had a very contentious relationship, especially when it came 

to Alan‘s stance on his family. For example since moving to our present 

home in 2008, not one member of the immediate Humphrey family has 

ever visited. Roger Humphrey had no personal knowledge of what or how 

Alan Humphrey and Shaw conducted their personal lives or their business.

Interestingly Roger Humphrey, on finding out about Alan Humphrey‘s death 

came to Dallas from his out of state home in a blaze of speed that would 

make Carl Lewis proud. Much like the family in the Joseph T. Marek 

case(No. 05-13-01008-CV) heard by this court, on arriving in Dallas, Roger 

Humphrey set about to make sure that Shaw was not going to receive what 

she was entitled to and told she would receive. 

3. Shaw was forced to file a case in probate court to preserve her 

rights.(CR-5)It is uncontroverted that Shaw and Humphrey had lived 

together continuously from 1998 until Humphrey‘s untimely death. It is 

uncontroverted that Shaw and Humphrey represented to others that they 

were married and were thought of as such by the community as evidenced 

by affidavits. (CR-12-22) However, Roger Humphrey seems to think that 

only his thoughts and/or those of the other Humphrey members, all 
interested parties with something to gain matter over uninterested 

community members who do not stand to profit and who interacted with 

Denna and Alan over a number of years. 

4. Shaw hired an attorney and expected him to properly handle her

case, however he ramrodded Shaw into agreeing to a purported 

settlement agreement. (CR-37-55)

5. The purported settlement read into the record contemplated a release 

from Shaw and MR. ALDOUS:

―Alex Carlson who is one of the residuary beneficiaries who is Ms. Shaw‘s 

son. In exchange for a release from those two as flowing to the estate.....‖ 

(CR-39, Lines 12-15) In exchange for that, Ms. Shaw will waive any and all 

claims to the estate and that is also contemplated for Alex Carlson. That 

they will not make any more claims...‖ (CR-39, lines 20-23)

6. Further noted on the record is the fact that ―All of this is agreed to by

Ms. Shaw; however Mr. Carlson, who is of the age of majority has to 

consult with his attorney and will have to agree to any of these terms‖ (CR40, lines 22-25)

7. (CR-43, lines 4-11) ―And in terms of a deadline for Mr. Carlson to 

either accept or reject, I did not discuss that with them other than I know 

that the lawyer he‘s been consulting with is out until Wednesday. I would 

ask for – until midweek next week.

MR GRIFFIN: How about the end of business on Monday, would that be 

sufficient?

Mr. ALDOUS: I think that‘s sufficient.

MR. GRIFFIN: ...it goes without saying, but I‘d say it anyway, that this 

matter will be dismissed with prejudice.

MR. ALDOUS: Correct
THE COURT: The action now pending before the court cause number 

we‘re talking about today will be dismissed with prejudice. (CR-43, lines 

14-19)

8. MR. GRIFFIN: And you understand that you‘ve agreed to accept the 

home at 3650 Asberry paid up-to-date at the time of the transfer to 

you in exchange for waiving any other claims you might have against 

the estate?

A. Correct

Q. And you understand that your son Alex has to have his own 

separate agreement to also agree to have that home deeded to both 

you and he?

A. Yes (CR-45, lines 4-12)

9. MR. GRIFFIN: And you understand that you will have no further 

claims against the estate after this proceeding, after this agreement, if 

it becomes final? (CR-46, lines 2-4)

10.The court did not render judgment at the conclusion of the hearing 

stating: Now we‘re finished. 

Mr. ALDOUS: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you all for your efforts in this case. I know it has 

been a somewhat arduous undertaking. 

MR. GRIFFIN:Thank you. 

MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Judge (CR-54, lines 13-19)

11.After the hearing a document was produced to Denna Shaw which 

was not in conformity with the purported settlement agreement read into 

the record. In addition to additional language not discussed or agreed to on 

the record, Alex Carlson did not agree to participate.

12. After Carlson did not agree to participate in the purported settlement 

agreement and after Shaw refused to sign a document that was not in 
compliance with the record Roger Humphrey filed a petition with the court 

complaining that ―To date, all Parties have signed the Settlement 

Agreement except for Denna Shaw‖ (CR-30, #6) Which was untrue. 

George Alexander Carlson, who was included in the original documents 

produced for signature also did not sign. Also, the original document listed 

clearly lists George Alexander Carlson as a Party. 

In addition R. Humphrey complains that is ―consistent with the settlement 

agreement read into the record‖ yet failed to produce a document that was 

consistent with the record. 

13. After Carlson refused to sign and hired representation, Shaw withdrew 

her agreement. The Humphrey‘s attempted to enforce the purported 

settlement agreement and totally ignore the fact that a person who they 

stated must also agree did not agree. 

14. Roger Humphrey then filed a Supplement to Defendant‘s Original 

Answer to Plaintiff‘s Original Petition, Counterclaim, and request for 

Disclosure (CR-74) stating ―Denna and George Alexander Carlson will 

receive the following property‖ omitting the need for G. Alex Carlson‘s 

signature and approval to put the deed in both names. (CR-75) Adding 

language about a storage that was not mentioned or discussed at the 

hearing (CR-75, 4a-iii) Stating that ―Denna or Alex shall be responsible for 
any and all costs associated with the Stored Personal Property‖ (CR-75, 

4f) and (CR-76, 4j) Denna shall assume all debt related to 3650 Asbury, 

including taxes, insurance and the mortgage. All outstanding expenses will 

be paid up to date at the time of transfer of property to Denna and Alex. 

Again transferring debts, and property to Alex that, according to the record 

required Alex to agree. Alex was included on the deed without his specific 

approval and that is a violation of what opposing counsel stated was a 

requirement. 

15. Roger Humphrey asserted a Breach of Contract claim against Shaw, 

but Shaw is not required to perform as there was no contract to breach. 

The purported agreement was not rendered. It was not intended to be final 

as evidenced by opposing counsel‘s own words ―if it becomes final‖ with no 

objection by attorney‘s. Not a one. It was clear Alex Carlson was required 

to agree sign off in order to have the deed placed in both names and have 

the house transferred. 

16. In addition, a family settlement agreement in probate requires for all to 

agree. Even if Denna and Alex Carlson signed the  ̳agreement‖ it would fail 

because another beneficiary who stood to have his share altered was not 

included. Counsel tries to get around that by stating something to the 

effect of he (Scott Humphrey) is in agreement without other proof. How 
easy would that be for everyone? Someone could just state...oh he or she 

agrees. I have not found any information that supports that reasoning. 

17. A trial date was ultimately set attempting to enforce the purported 

agreement by a Breach of Contract claim. A notice was not sent to Carlson 

or his attorney. Carlson‘s attorney filed a Plea in Intervention (CR-138), 

which was denied by Judge Peyton. After denial of the Plea in Intervention, 

the Breach of contract claim was heard by the Court. Although the 

―agreement‖ did not conform to what was read into the record, did not 

conform to a probate family settlement agreement (as all did not agree), 

Alex Carlson did not agree to participate, the Court disregarded this 

evidence and ruled in favor of Roger Humphrey ordering Shaw to pay 

damages.