estateby an independent
executo include a duty of full disclosureof all matelial factsknown to the executorthat 'ect might a rights.Montgomeryv. Kennedy,669 S.W.2d309, 313 the beneficiaries'
(Tex.l ) (trusteesof trust and executorsof estatehad fiduciary duty of full disclosure
to bene ciary);seeHuie, 922 S.W.2dat923. A fiduciaryalso "owesits principala high
duty of faith, fair dealing,honestperformance,and strict accountability."Ludlow v.
De , 959S.W.2d265,279 [14thDist.]1997,nowrit)'Whena.n (Tex.App.-Houston
indepen nt executortakesthe oath and qualifiesin that capacity,he or sheassumesall
duties a fidrrciaryas a matterof law. HumaneSoc'y,531 S.W.2dX 5ll; Geeslinv.
McEl , 788S.W.2d683,686-87(Tex.App.-Arlstin1990,no writ).
fiduciary relationshipexistedbetweenthe independentexecutorand Appellant
asa ficiary underthe Codicil, which includedvariousduties,includingthe duty to
refrain commingling of funds and the duty to discloseall materialfacts.However,it
is axio ic thatWilson
s statedabove.the Executor'sduties fuli disclosureof all materialfactsknown
to the eeutorthat might affect the beneficiaries'rights. There is nothing in the recordto
1l disclosure. The elementsof actionablefraud are: (1) thatamaterial
ion was made; (2) that it was false; (3) that when the speakermade it he knew
seor madeit recklesslywithoutanyknowledgeof thetruth andasa positive
; (4) thathe madeit with the intentionthatit shouldbe acteduponby theparty;
(5) that party actedin relianceupon it; (6) that he therebysufferedinjury. Stonev.
., 554S.W.2d183,185(Tex.l97l); OilwellDivision.United
d 487(Tex.l973); tionv. Frver,493S.W.2 45 Wilsonv. Jones,
s.w.2d72 (1'ex.Com.App. 932,holding approved).When the alleged fraud arises because f a failure to disclosefacts,a duty, becauseof either a confidentialor fiduciar1,
relati ip. to disclosethosefacts must exist in orderto make such failure actionableas
fraud. .,531S.W .2d55,61( Tex.Civ.App.- Cor p us
S.W.2dl83, 185(Tex.1917);Moore& Christi 976),rev'don othergrounds,554
v. White,345S.W.2d550(Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1961,writ
Co.v. DanielMotorCo.,I49S.W.2d979(Tex.Civ. refd n.r .);PhillipsPetroleum
App.-- tland 1941,writ dism'djudgm't cor.). The Executorconcealedmaterialfacts
from A lant Gomez as beneficiaryunderthe Codicil and committedfraud.
Negli is the breachof the duty of ordinary carewhich causesa Plaintiff damages.
., 751F3d614 6tnCir.). Thereis nothingin therecordto
demons the ordinary care,if any, the Executorexercisedin this casetoward the
benefici underthe Codicil. The Executoris liablefor breachof fiduciaryduty,
fraud, negligencetoward the beneficiariesunderthe Codicil, and the Order
Admitti Will to Probateshouldbe reversedand remandedfor fuither proceedings.
I2 F'ERROR NO. TEN
THE AL COURTERREDBY NOTREQUIRING APPELLEETO LINDERTHE CODICILAS JOIN E AT'PELLANTAND OTHERBENEFICIARIES NECES ARYPARTIES.
ppellant and the other beneficiariesand legateesunderthe codicil were denied theirri ts to due Drocessunder the 14tl'amendmentto the U.S. Constitutionand Amend l9 to the TexasConstitution. A party to a suit shouldjoin all claims that are com ry. Ingersoll-RandCo. v. Valero EnergyCorp.,997 S.W.2d203,207 (Tex, leee). claim is compulsoryif it meetsthe following criteria; 1) Id. The claim must be within the court'ssubject-matter.iurisdiction. Appell t's claim is for money in the estateof the Decedent ) The claimmustnot bependingasa suit in anothercourt. Id. Appellant hasnot ht to collectthe moneydue underthe codicil in anothercourt.
) The claim must be maturedand ownedby the pleaderwhen he files his appeara . !!. Thetestamentary to Appellantmaturedat Mr. gift from Decedent Bernal' deathand is owned by the Appellant. ) The claim must arisefrom the sametransactionor occurrence.Id. The claim ar sesfrom the only codicil to the will of Decedent.
) The claim must be againstthe opposingparty in the samecapacityin party filed his claim. Id. Appellant was a friend and caregiverto the
All parliesmust be available. Id. Basedon information and belief, Appell believesthat the