### NUM BER 13-07- 0011 1-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
R IC H A R D P A U L K OR EN EK , J R . A ND JA M ES L A

WR ENC E K ORE NEK , A pp ellan ts,

v. DEN NIS KOR ENE K, ET A L., A pp ellees .

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 32 9t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of W ha rton C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Appel lan ts, R ic hard Paul Korenek, Jr . and Ja mes La w re nce Kor enek, appeal from a jur y findi ng fav or ing appel lee s, Den nis Korenek, Jo hn Lee Kor enek, Ja nic e Korenek Kight, Delore s K oren ek Sta v ena , and Lawrence Koren ek. All parties to th e insta nt case
ar e s ibl ing s. Appell ees soug ht a decl ar ator y judg ment setti ng aside a deed of g ift s ig nedD o ro th y , H e l e n , a n d W a y n e a re n o t p a rti e s to th e s u i t. 1 2 by Adel a Korenek, thei r mother , c onv ey ing 185. 5 ac re s t o appel lan ts , a n d req uest ed attor ney ’s fees. The jur y found that Adel a Kor enek w as of unsound mind at t he ti me the deed w as ex ecut ed, a nd that appel lan ts faile d to compl y w it h the fiduc iar

y duti es ow ed to Adel a Korenek conc er nin g the ex ecut ion of the d eed; the j ur y al so aw arded ap p ell ees $39 ,59 6.7 5 in atto rney’s fees. By tw o issues, app ellant s conte nd th at: (1) t he e v iden ce
w as leg all y and factual ly ins uff ic ien t to suppo rt the jur y ’s findi ng that Adel a Kor enek w as of un s ou nd mi nd at th e ti me s he ex ec ut ed th e de ed ; an d ( 2) th e at to r ney ’s fe es award shoul d be re v ersed becau se the a ppel lee s l ack ca paci ty

to re cov er

unde r the Tex as D ec l arat or

y J ud g me nt s A c t. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND A . Fam ily

H ist or y Adel a Korenek

is the mother of elev en c hil dren: J ohn Lee Korenek, D orothy Ja ne Merta, Richard Pa ul Koren ek J r. , Helen T here sa Hube nak, Jame s Lawrence Koren ek, D e l o r e s M a r i e S t a v e n a , L a w r e n c e H e n r y , B e a t r i c e A n n R a c h u n e k , J a n i c e M a r ie Ki g ht, Denn is Ray

Koren ek, an d W ayne Allen Ko rene k. 1 A d e l a ’ s h u s b a n d , w h o d i e d o n A p r i l 6 , 1 9 8 5 , d e v i s e d b y w i l l fo u r t r act s o f land tota lin g 310 .5 acres to Adela . In Februa ry 198 7, Ad ela revised her w ill grant ing R ichard and W ay ne a li fe estat e in the tw o acre s sur ro undi ng her home and i n anot her fiftyac re s of land. Ad ela ’s w il l als o dev is ed to each of her chi ldren an eq ual i nteresti n the r emaind er of her prope rty . On April 26, 20 02, howev er, Ade la e x ecut ed a dee d of g if t (“the dee d”)
conv e y i n g tw o o f t h e fo u r o r i g i n a l t r a c t s o f l a n d , t o t a l i n g 1 8 5

. 5 a c r e s , t o R i c h a r d and James

.3

On Dece mb er 17, 2 004 , app ellees f iled the ir ori ginal petition f or declara tory jud g ment, in wh ich they so ug ht a jud g ment dec lar ing : (1 ) that the d eed i s n ull and v oid ; (2 ) that the p ro per

ty su bje ct to t he deed sh oul d pas s t h ro ug h Adel a Korenek’ s t est ate esta te; a nd (3) tha t app ellees sh ould be awarded rea sona ble an d ne cessary attorne y ’s fees. App ellant s answered w ith a genera l denia l and th eir ow n request for atto rney’s fees. T he ca se w as tried bef ore a jury , w hich foun d tha t the d eed shou ld be set aside be cause Adel a w as not of s ound mind at the ti me the deed w as ex ecut ed and becau se Ri chard and James breache d a fid uci ar y duty ow ed to Adel a. B. Ev id ence R egar di ng Adel a’s C om pet ence From 19 98 u ntil the time o f her dea th, Ad ela w as usu ally cared for by Cy nth ia Varg as on w eekda y s, by R ic hard at nig ht, and by her daug hters a nd daug hters- in- law on the w eeken ds. D ur ing thi s t ime, Adel a al so had s ev er al ro uti ne v is it ors a nd unde rw ent freq uent medic al ex aminat ions. At tr ial , s ome of her famil y members, caretak ers, and frie nds tes ti fied about her competen ce. Ma rk M ar coni M .D ., medic al direct or of tw o nursi ng h o m e s , t e s t if ie d a s a n e xp e rtwit n e s s a b o u tA d e la ’s m e d ic a l h is t o ry. 1. Evide nce Suppo rting Ad ela’ s Com pet ence Audrey Greg ur ek, Adel a’s g ra nddaug hter , t est ified thatsh e s aw her g ra ndmother approx imat ely

ev er y othe r w eek for th e l asttw enty y ears of he r li fe. Audrey noted that they eng ag ed i n nor mal and routi ne c onv ersat ion about v ar iou s a spec ts of l ife. Audrey tes ti fied tha t Ade la had told her abo ut plans to deed a 135 -acre-tract of land to R ichard and Jam es. Audrey st ated that she bel iev ed Ade la ev entual ly ex ecut ed the d e e d o u t of the l ov e s he had for Ri chard and James

. App ellant Jame s Lawrence Koren ek testif ied tha t he gav e Ade la the dee d at lea st4

one w eek before the date it w as si g ned, and that he bel iev ed hi s mot her r ead i t befor e s he signe d i t. James al so sta ted t hat h e di d notas k o r urg e hi s mot her to si g n the deed. James note d tha t t he deed onl y co nv ey ed th e s ur

face r ig hts to James and Ri chard and that the e lev en c hil dr en retai ned eq ual i nterest s i n the min er al ri g hts

. Be at r i c e R ac hu ne k te s ti fi ed th at he r s i s te rs an d s i s te rs - i n- l aw be c am e Ade la’s prima ry weeken d careta kers in a ppro x ima tely 19 98; h owev er, by 200 3, m ost of her sisters
a n d s i s t e rs - i n - l a w h a d “ fi l t e r e d o ff, ” a n d B e a t r i c e , H e l e n , D o ro t h y , a n d A u d r e y w e r e the
ones that “t ook up t he s lac k” i n c ar ing for A del a. Beatr ic e s tated thatAdel a had spok en wit h h e r a b o u tt h e d e e d p ri o r t o si gn in g i t

. Be a t ri c e a ls o s t a t e d t h a t sh e “d id n o tb e li e ve [Adel a] w as coerced, ” and t hat she bel iev ed her mother int ended to conv ey the proper

ty to Ri chard and James becau se Ri chard had “d ev oted his enti re li fe t o tak in g ca re of [Adel a]” and becau se her mother w anted to en sure tha t R ic hard w oul d al w ay s h av e a home and re main abl e to farm the lan d. Beatr ic e tes ti fied th at ev en atthe ti mes ne ar ing death her

mother w as not easi ly manipu lat ed, re cog niz ed peop le she had notse en i n ov er four y ears, and cor re ctl y re ci ted all pr ay ers v er bati m w hen the pr ies t c ame to del iv er her las t r it es. Be atr ic e not ed s he w oul d be “o kay ” if her mother ’s w is hes w er e f ulfil led i n the dee d eve n i f

it mea nt she w ould “lose out” on the inte rest in the land th at she w ould oth erw ise have bee n granted und er Ade la’s w ill. Helen Hub ena k state d tha t she to ok care of Adela ’s fin ancia l matt ers since Ade la’s husba nd di ed. Hel en als o sta ted that she w as aw ar e of t he deed be fore her mother si g ned itbec ause Adela h a d tol d H ele n tha t s he w anted to c onv ey the proper

ty , and Adel a had asked Jame s to go to Ade la’s a ttorn ey to ha v e a de ed d raf ted . Helen stat ed th at she did5

not b eli ev e her mother w as coerced or mani pul ated int o s ig nin g the deed, but rather that itw as her

mother ’s intent ion to ex ecut e the deed. H ele n not ed th at he r mother ch ose not to s ig n the deed in front of the ent ire famil y bec ause she w as a v er y pr iv ate p erson. H ele n further tes ti fied she did not feel “s li g hted or cheat ed” by los ing the proper ty int e re st she posse ssed u nde r the w ill beca use th e prop erty w ould be g ive n t o Richa rd and Jame s in
acc ordance w it h her

mother ’s w is hes. Varg as tes ti fied th at s he beg an car ing for Adel a in June or Ju ly 1998, and cont inu ed
c a ri n g fo r Ad e la u n t il h e r de a t h

. V a rg a s t e s t if ie d t h a tA d e la h a d a “go o d sh a rp p e rs o n a li t y” most day s. Varg as tes ti fied th at A del a enj oy ed hav ing visit ors, eng ag ed i n c onv ersat ion
w it h the m, and appeared to unders tand ev er y thi ng that w as g oin g on a ro und her

. Varg as furt h e r t e s t i fi e d t h a ts h e w i t n e s s e d A d e l a s i g n t h e d e e d i n q u e s t i o n
. V a rg a s s t a t e d that Adel a w as ask ed i f she k new w hat w as bei ng si g ned t hat day

. Varg as als o tes ti fied th at Adel a di d notse em con fused at the t ime she si g ned t he deed

. Dorothy H yek , Ad ela ’s fri end, als o tes ti fied attr ial

. Hy ek admit ted t hat s he w as pr esentat the t ime the d eed w as ex ecut ed and that she als o w it ness ed Adela si g nin g the deed. H y ek tes ti fied th at it appeared that Adel a knew w hat she w as si g nin g becau se she “s ig ned t he pape rs pretty q uic k” after

sh e recei v ed th em. John Hr nci r, a no tar

y , t est ified thathe w it ness ed Ade la ex ecut e the deed, and he notar iz ed it. Hr nci r tes ti fied that he thoug ht Adela unders tood w hat s he w as si g nin g and t h a tA d e la a p p e a re d t o wa n tt o si gn it

. Hr n c ir a ls o t e s t if ie d t h a t h e w o u ld n o th a ve notar iz ed th e deed if he fel t t hat A del a di d notundersta nd i t. Et hy ln Popp, Adel a’s fri end, tes ti fied th at s he w oul d eng ag e i n c onv ersat ion w it h6

Adel a, an d Adel a us ual ly se emed to know

w hat w as happeni ng around he r. J ohn D ro z d,
a cl erg y man, del iv er ed communi on w eekl y to Adel a dur ing her las t tw o y ear s o f he r lif e. He tes ti fied th at A dela a lways re cogni z ed hi m and w as abl e to re ci te al l the a ppropr iat e prayers from mem ory . Drozd testif ied th at Ad ela usu al ly t a lk e d ab out Richard or just eng ag ed i n g eneral conv ersat ion

. 2. Evide nce Suppo rting Inco m pet ence Dr . M ar coni tes ti fied as an e x per t w it ness v ia v ide o depos it ion aboutAdel a’s mental compet ence. D r. M ar coni nev er personal ly met w it h Adel a but , after r ev iew ing her

medi cal
re cords from 1994 unti l the ti me of he r death, he te sti fied th at he bel iev ed Ade la suffered from dementia and depres si on at the ti me the deed w as ex ecut ed; t her efore, Adel a l ack ed the capa city

to execute th e de ed. Dr . Marconi base d his belief on Ad ela’s me dical records, inc lud ing : doc uments sh ow ing thatprev iou s d oct ors p re sc ri bed s ev er al me d icati ons for Adel a w hic h are ty pic all y used to tr eat depr ess ion and dementi a; CT brai n s cans i ndi cat ing chroni c i sc hemicdi seas e w hic h can c ause mult i- infar ct dementi a; an d the medi cal
ass ess ments of f iv e doc tors w ho dia g nosed Adel a as sufferin g from dementi a as ear ly as September

22, 1999. Dr . Mar coni also tes ti fied that he bel iev ed Adela’ s his tor y of st ro ke, depr ess ion , h e a r

t c o n d i t i o n s , a n d d iab etes co ntr ibu ted t o the dev elo pment of her dementi a. Dr . M ar coni furth er

tes ti fied th at Adela ’s death f ro m aspi ra ti on pneu monia is i ndi cat iv e of dementi a bec ause the mos t c ommon cau ses of death f o r in div idu als su ff er ing from dementi a are pneumoni a and infect ion

. Appel lee Del or es “H oney ” Stav ena tes ti fied th at atthe ti me the deed w as ex ecut ed, her mother co uld no l ong er

per form many

dai ly -l iv ing acti v it ies , and that she bel iev ed her7

mother w as not o f s ound mind. D elo re s s tated thather mother se emed hur

t and co nfused and as i f she di d no t u n d e rst a n d w hat w as occ ur ri ng w it h reg ard to the d eed, w hen s he inq uired abou t t he deed on F ebr uar y 12, 2003. D elo re s a ls o tes ti fied that w hen s he c all ed her brot her Jam es Kore nek to inquire abou t the dee d, Jam es accu sed h er of injuring the ir mothe r instead of answ er ing q uest ion s a bout the d eed. D elo re s a ls o tes fified th at he r
mo the r suf

fered f rom d epre ssion he r entire life and of ten had moo d sw ings. Appel lan t R ic hard Ko re nek tes ti fied th at he bel iev ed hi s mot her su ff er ed from depr ess ion si nce he w as g ro w ing up a nd that, w hen her co ndi ti on w orsened , Va rg as beg an to sta y ov ernight to ta ke care of her

. Rich ard stat ed th at his m oth er had previ ously
conv ey ed l and i n W eimar , Tex as, eq ual ly among al l ele v en c hil dr en i n 1993. Varg as tes ti fied th at, dur ing the las t s ix months of Ad e la ’s l ife, A del a s ometi mes stayed awake for three -and -a-half days w ithou t any sleep. Cy nth ia also test if ied th at Ad ela
w oul d oc cas ion all y

hav e mood s w ing s o r became or ner y bec ause she w as acc ust omed to ha v ing thi ng s h er

w ay
. II. D I S CUS S I ON A . Suf

fi cien cy o f th e Ev id ence App ellant s, by the ir first issue, argue th at th e evidence wa s l e ga ll y and factu ally ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s findi ng thatAdel a Korenek w as of unsound mind at t he ti me the deed w as ex ecut ed. W e di sag re e. 1. Standa rd

of Rev iew In cons ide ri ng no e v ide nce or l eg al suffici ency

points of error , w e consi der

only the
ev ide nce and i nferenc es from the ev ide nce fav or abl e to the deci si on of the tr ier of fact, a ndW e acknowl edge t hat gen er al l y a per son who si gns a docu m ent i s pr esum ed t o ha v e r ead and 2 under st ood t he d ocum ent and t he b ur den i s on t he p ar t y seeki ng t o v oi d t he d ocum ent t o pr ov e i ncom pet ence. D u b re e v . B la c k w e ll , 6 7 S .W .3 d 2 8 6 , 2 8 9 (T e x . A p p .– A m a ril l o 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.); C O MM
. ON P A T T E RN J URY C HA RG ES , S T AT E B AR OF T EX ., T e x a s P a tt e r n J u r y C h a r g e s : B u s in e s s , C o n s u m e r, In s u ra n c e , E m p lo y m e n t PJC 10 1.33 (200 3).

8 dis re g ard al l ev ide nce and i nferenc es to t he c ontrar y . See City of Kel

ler v. W ilson , 168 S.W .3d 8 02, 8 07, 8 27 ( Tex . 200 5) . I f more t han a sc int il la of ev ide nce suppo rt s t he chal len g ed findi ng , t he le gal s u f f ici ency ch all eng e mustfail

. See Gen. Motors Corp. v. Sanc hez , 997 S.W .2d 5 8 4 , 5 88 (T ex.1999 ). If th e evidence f urnishe s some reason able basis for supp orting the challen ged f inding, the n mo re tha n a scintilla of ev iden ce exists. See Kindred

v. Con/Che m , Inc. , 650 S.W .2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983 ). An as ser

ti on th at t he e vide nce is factual ly i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t a fact findi ng
me ans th at th e evidence supp orting the f inding is so w eak or the evidence to the con trary is so ov er

w hel ming thatthe answ er sh oul d be setas ide and a new tr ial order ed. See Mar. Ov er s ea s C or

p. v . Ellis , 971 S.W .2d 4 02, 4 13 ( Tex . 199 8)

. In c onsi der ing a fact ual
s u f f ic ie n c y p o in t , we m a y n o tsu b s t it u t e o u r j u d gm e n tfo r t h a to f t h e t ri e r o f

fa c t , b u twe must ass ess al l the e v ide nce and rev erse for a new tr ial onl y

i f the c hal len g ed findi ng shoc ks the cons ci ence, cl ear ly s h o w s b ias , or i s s o ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d pr eponderance of the ev ide nce as to be mani festl y unj ust

. Id. at 40 6- 07. 2. Leg al and

Factua l Sufficien cy At t ri al, the firs t j ur

y q uest ion r ead: “ Do y ou find from a prepondera n ce of the evidence th at Ad ela Ko rene k w as of soun d min d at the time of executing the Deed on Ap ril 26, 200 2?” Appe llants m ade no objection to the charge at trial nor d id t h e y subm it their 2 own propose d cha rg e prior to trial. Th erefore, we an alyz e the le gal an d factu al suf f iciency9

of the ev ide nce under the uncha ll eng ed jur y charg e g iv en attr ial

. See B ra dfor d v . Ve nto , 48 S.W .3d 749, 754 (Tex . 2 0 0 1 ); W al- Ma rt Sto re s, Inc . v

. Stur ges , 52 S.W .3d 7 11, 7 15 (Tex . 200 1)

. At t ri al, Dr. M ar coni tes ti fied abou t s ev er al medic ati ons that Adel a had been prescribed thata re ty pically used to treatdem ent ia and dep ression. Furthermo re, Dr. Marconi also te stif ied th at, according to the me dical records, at least f iv e dif feren t doct ors dia g nosed Adel a w it h dement ia in thei r medic al ass ess m e nts

. Mo re ov er , s ev er al
w it ness es tes ti fied abou t Ad ela ’s phy si cal depend ence and some of them als o testi fied as to he r li fe long dep ression an d mo od swi ngs. Af ter rev iew ing the me dical an d w itness tes ti mony , w e c oncl ude t hat t her e w as more than a s cin till a of ev ide nce suppo rt ing the jur y ’s findi ng thatA d ela w as not o f sound mi nd atthe ti me the deed w as ex ecut ed. Therefor e, t he ev ide nce w as leg all y su f fici ent t o s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s findi ng
. See G en. Mo tor s C or p. , 997 S.W .2d a t 588

. Fur ther more, after

r ev iew ing the re cord and loo ki ng at ev ide nce both fav or abl e and cont ra ry to the j ur

y ’s findi ng , w e do not fin d tha t t he j ur y ’s findi ng w as agai nstthe g re at
w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce as to be manifest ly unj ust suc h tha t i t req uires
us to s ubst it ute o ur

j udgm e n t for th at of the fact- finder

. See M ar . O ver seas C or p. , 971 S.W .2d at 406- 07. Mo re ov er , it shoul d be noted that due to appel lan t’ s failu re to obj ectto the ch arge, t he jury

was required to de term ine w het her the prepo nde rance of the evidence
s u p p o rt e d a f i n d i n g t h a ts h e w a s o f so u n d m ind at t he ti me the deed w as ex ecut ed, n ot
w hether sh e w as of unsound mind. See Cit y o f Keller

, 168 S.W .3d a t 827 ; see a lso Dubree v. Blackwell , 67 S.W .3d 2 86, 2 89 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2001, no pet.)

. Therefor e,10

w e find that the e v ide nce w as factual ly su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s findi ng
. Appel lan ts’ first is sue is ov er ru led

. B. A w ard in g of

A tt or ney ’s F ees By the ir seco nd issue, a ppe llants argue th at ap pellee s could no t recover attorne y ’s f e e s under

the Tex as Dec larator

y Ju dg ments Actbec ause appel lee s w er e not“ persons int er est ed unde r a deed” as r eq uired b y the sta tutor

y l ang uag e. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. A NN
. § 37.004 (V er non 199 7)

. Appel lan ts arg ue th at “ persons i n te re st e d ” r efers to persons made pa rt ies to a deed, not merel y es tate benefic iar ies

. T he T exas Declaratory Judgm ent s Act is a reme dial statu te an d it is to be liberally
cons tr ued and admi nis tered. Id. § 37. 002( b) ( Ver non 199 7)

. The st atute prov ide s that "[a] p e rso n in te re s t e d u n d e r a d e e d , will, w rit te n co n tr a ct , o r ot h e r writin gs co n st it u ti n g a cont ra ct or

w hose ri g hts , s tatus , or othe r leg al rela tions ar e affect ed by a .
. . c ontract

. . . may hav e determi ned anyques ti on of constr uct ion or v ali dit y

ari si ng under t he i nst ru ment [or] contr act

. . . a n d o b t a i n a d e c l a r a t i o n o f r i g h t s , s t a t u s , o r o t h e r l e g a l r e l a t i o ns thereunder ." Id. § 37.0 04(a ). Moreover, attorn ey's f e e s a re available in a suit for a decl ar ator

y j udg ment. Id. § 37 .00 9 (Verno n 19 97). A cou rt’s aw ard or den ial of atto rney’s fees under

the Dec larator

y Ju dg ments Acti s re v iew ed for an abuse of di sc re ti on. Ri dge Oi l Co. v. Gui

nn In vs ., Inc ., 14 8 S.W .3d 143 , 163 (Tex. 2004 ). W e find that ind iv idu als i nst it uti ng su iti n order t o d e te rm ine the v ali dit y of a deed
w hich m ay af

fect th eir prope rty

rig hts m ay recover attorne y ’s fe es und er the Decla ratory Judg ments Act

. Florey v. Estat e of McConn ell , 212 S.W .3d 4 39 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2006, pet. deni ed) , i s i nst ru cti v e i n thi s reg ard. In Fl or ey , a dece den t’s estat e institu ted suit11

seek ing to v oid a de ed of tr ustg ra nted by dec edent’ s h usban d to his att or n e y t o p a y for leg al fees after

being conv ic ted of murde ri ng the deced ent. See id

. Nei ther the est ate o r dece den t w ere na me d pa rties to the dee d of trust, bu t the cou rt a f

f irmed the trial court’s
aw ardin g of attor ney ’s fees. Id . at447- 450. Therefor e, w e find that the t ri al cour t di d notabus e i ts dis cret io n i n aw ardin g attor ney ’s fees t o the appel lee s. Appel lan ts’ se cond is sue is ov er ru led

. III . C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

_________

_________

______ ROGEL IO VAL DEZ, Chief Justice Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 29t h day

of Jul y , 200 8.