NO. 12-12-00374-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE ESTATE OF § APPEAL FROM THE 

RUBY RENEE BYROM, § COUNTY COURT

DECEASED § CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jerry Byrom appeals from the county court’s order for the sale of real property and 

appointment of a receiver. In one issue, he contends the county court erred in imposing a 

constructive trust on his homestead property and ordering its sale to pay guardian’s fees, 

accounting fees, attorney’s fees, and the interest thereon. We affirm.

BACKGROUND1

Jerry Byrom was appointed executor of the estate of his mother, Ruby Renee Byrom. In 

June 2005, Roy Anderson, the temporary guardian of Mrs. Byrom’s estate prior to her death, 

filed a $31,992.75 claim against her probate estate for temporary guardian’s fees and attorney’s 

fees. Byrom rejected the claim. Byrom also filed an inventory and appraisement of Mrs. 

Byrom’s estate. Anderson objected to the inventory claiming that Byrom had omitted assets that 

existed at Mrs. Byrom’s death.

On July 1, 2008, the county court removed Byrom as executor citing gross 

mismanagement, misappropriation of funds, and gross misconduct. On August 10, 2009, the 

county court granted the joint request of Anderson and Duane Coker2to impose a constructive 

trust on Byrom’s home constructed with estate funds. The court ordered Byrom to pay 

 

1

For a somewhat more extended recital of the procedural history of this case, see In re Estate of Byrom,

No. 12-09-00279-CV, 2011 WL 590588 (Tex. App.–Tyler Feb. 16, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

2

 Coker was the attorney ad litem for Mrs. Byrom in the guardianship proceeding.
2

$200,000.00 into the court’s registry within thirty days. If Byrom failed to comply with the 

court’s order, his home was to be sold to satisfy the estate’s debts.

Byrom appealed the order to this court asserting, inter alia, that he had no legal notice of 

the hearing that resulted in the order impressing a constructive trust on his homestead. See In re 

Estate of Byrom, No. 12-09-00279-CV, 2011 WL 590588, at *5 (Tex. App.–Tyler Feb. 16, 

2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Byrom also maintained that the county court exceeded its 

authority in imposing a constructive trust on his homestead and conditionally ordering its sale. 

See id. at *6. In all respects pertinent to this appeal, the judgment was affirmed.

On September 4, 2012, the county court ordered the sale of part of Byrom’s property, and 

Byrom appealed. 

THE COUNTY COURT’S ORDER

In his sole issue, Byrom contends the county court erred in imposing a constructive trust 

on his homestead property and ordering its sale to pay guardian’s fees, accounting fees, 

attorney’s fees, and the interest thereon. Anderson argues that Byrom’s complaints are barred by 

res judicata. We agree.

Applicable Law

The homestead of a family or of a single adult person is exempt from forced sale for the 

payment of all debts except for those classes of indebtedness enumerated in Article 16, Section 

50(a) of the Texas Constitution. However, “[i]t has long been decided that [the] homestead and 

exemption laws of this State were never intended to be, and cannot be, the haven of wrongfully 

obtained money or properties.” Baucom v. Texam Oil Corp., 423 S.W.2d 434, 442 (Tex. Civ. 

App–El Paso 1967, writ ref’d n.r.e.). “[T]he homestead protection afforded by the Texas 

Constitution was never intended to protect stolen funds. Bransom v. Standard Hardware, 874 

S.W.2d 919, 928 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1994, writ denied).

Res judicata bars assertion of a claim in a later case when (1) there is a prior final 

determination on the merits in a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the parties in the second 

action are the same or in privity with those in the first action, and (3) the second action is based 

on the same claims as were raised or could have been raised in the first action. Travelers Ins. 

Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010). Res judicata precludes the relitigation of 

claims that were finally adjudicated “as well as related matters that, with the use of diligence, 
3

should have been litigated in the prior suit.” Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627, 

628 (Tex. 1991). Texas follows the transactional approach to res judicata barring claims arising 

out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the first suit. State & Cnty. Mut.

Fire Ins. Co. v. Miller, 52 S.W.3d 693, 696 (Tex. 2001).

Discussion

Byrom contends that the trial court erred in imposing a constructive trust on property he 

claims as homestead and in ordering the sale of that property. Byrom raised these same issues in 

the prior proceeding between the same parties and arising out of the same facts. This court ruled 

adversely to Appellant on both claims. See In re Estate of Byrom, 2011 WL 590588, at *7. 

Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata bars the relitigation of Byrom’s claims. 

Moreover, the record indicates that sometime during the course of the litigation, Byrom 

admitted that, while executor, he paid for the construction of the home on the subject property 

with money from his mother’s estate. Byrom was removed as executor for misappropriation of 

funds and gross misconduct. Now, apparently, the estate has no money to pay the claims against 

the estate. Byrom wrongfully used the estate’s money to construct the home he now claims as 

homestead. The homestead law does not protect property or funds obtained with money 

misappropriated by a fiduciary. See Baucom, 423 S.W.2d at 442; Bransom, 874 S.W.2d at 928.

Appellant’s sole issue is overruled.

DISPOSITION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

BILL BASS

 Justice

Opinion delivered July 31, 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Bass, Retired J., Twelfth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.

(PUBLISH)
4

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 31, 2013

NO. 12-12-00374-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF RUBY RENEE BYROM, DECEASED

 Appeal from the County Court

 of Cherokee County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 10745)

 

 

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that all costs of this appeal are hereby adjudged 

against the appellant, JERRY BYROM, for which execution may issue, and that this decision 

be certified to the court below for observance.

Bill Bass, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Bass, Retired J.,

Twelfth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.