Court Opinion

ID: 9674476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:29:38.19582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:27.777043
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The appellants’ motion for rehearing earnestly insists that the record does not contain evidence to show the statute of limitations commenced to run as held in the Court’s opinion herein. The opinion did not go into this question in detail. Additional discussion is justified.
The trial court found as a fact that funds payable pursuant to the certificates of deposit mentioned in the opinion were withdrawn by Young and Jones on June 25, 1971, and that appellants’ suit for recovery thereof was instituted October 4,1973. The trial judge also reached the legal conclusion that an action for recovery of proceeds from the certificates of deposit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, Tex. Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., art. 5526.
Endorsed on the certificate to Mrs. Black and Eugene Jones is a statement, “This certificate being cashed June 25, 1971, to pay the funeral expenses of Mrs. Rosa Jones Black.” Underneath is the signature “Eugene Jones.” An endorsement, identical in meaning, and the signature “Marvin Young” appears upon the certificate of deposit issued to Mrs. Black and Marvin Young. Mr. Young and his wife, as witnesses, testified some of the proceeds of these certificates were used in payment of the expenses and debts of Mrs. Black’s estate.
Endorsements on the certificate, other evidence that some of the proceeds were used to pay debts of the estate, together with the assumption that these certificates or proceeds therefrom belonged to Mrs. Black’s estate, form the basis of appellants’ argument that:
“If the funds were withdrawn for this purpose, as the records clearly indicate, and if some of the funds were used for the' purpose of payment of the debts (which the Appellants do not dispute), then it seems apparent that the Appellees did withdraw the funds for the use of clearing up the debts of the estate; therefore, the statute of limitations would not begin running at the time of such withdrawal. The question of conversion comes into play after all of the debts had been paid, and the Appellees at that point did not account to the other heirs for the sums remaining. It would have been at that point in time that the Appellees clearly appropriated and converted the funds as their own instead of distributing them to the heirs at law. There was no showing that the Appellees knew the full extent of the debts of the estate at the time of withdrawing the funds, and therefore no intent was shown to convert the remainder of the funds, inasmuch as it was not clear that there would be any remainder after the payment of the debts.”
Mrs. Black was not blood kin to either Young or Jones; Mr. Young’s mother was a first cousin of Mrs. Black’s husband. There is no suggestion that either Young or Jones qualified as temporary administrator of Mrs. Black’s estate or attempted to do so or were in any manner authorized by constituted authority to act as the legal representative of Mrs. Black’s estate. When the widow or widower, as the case may be, of a decedent or the decedent’s surviving next of kin make no arrangements to dispose of the decedent’s remains, the reasonable expense of interment suitable to the estate of the decedent, may lawfully be incurred by a stranger and such expense recovered from the decedent’s estate. See Wright v. Harned, 163 S.W. 685 (Tex.Civ.App.Galveston 1914, no writ); Johnson v. Weed, 52 S.W.2d 917 (Tex.Civ.App.Austin 1932, no writ); Texas Probate Code, art. 322; Woodward and Smith, Probate and Decedents’ Estates, Sec. 941. No authority is found in statutory or case law for a volunteer or an interloper to take charge of a decedent’s estate and pay funeral expenses and other *907estate indebtedness and to such extent administer the estate independent of the probate court.
A useful definition of conversion, applicable in this case, is found in 14 Tex. Jur.2d, Conversion, Sec. 1, where it is said:
“Conversion is the unlawful and wrongful exercise of dominion, ownership or control by one person over the property of another, to the exclusion of the exercise of the same rights by the owner, either permanently or for an indefinite time.”
If the certificates and the proceeds belonged to Mrs. Black’s estate, as the appellants plead, disposal of these assets in the unauthorized manner shown amounts to conversion. Young and Jones took control, exercised dominion and ownership over the certificates and proceeds therefrom to the exclusion of the exercise of the same rights by the legal representative of Mrs. Black’s estate or her heirs at law.
A right of action accrues, as a general rule, whenever facts come into existence which give rise to a cause of action. Condor Petroleum Co. v. Greene, 164 S.W.2d 713 (Tex.Civ.App.1942, writ ref’d). The facts here clearly show that a cause of action accrued when Young and Jones cashed the certificates, if the certificates belonged to Mrs. Black’s estate as alleged. Under these facts, the trial judge had ample grounds for his conclusion that appellants’ suit against Young and Jones was barred by the two year statute of limitations.
Commencement of limitation period was not tolled by reason of a fiduciary relationship existing between the appellants and appellees. No such relationship existed pri- or to the alleged conversion. Appellants contend to the contrary and rely upon State v. Jones, 315 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Civ.App.Dallas 1958, writ ref’d n. r. e.). In the cited case, an uncle acting under a power of attorney from a nephew authorizing him to handle a joint bank account made withdrawals of the nephew’s funds. The court held that the statute of limitations did not commence to run until the nephew knew or should have known of the wrongful withdrawals. The case is distinguishable from this appeal on the facts.
For the reasons discussed, this Court declines to recede from its original disposition of this appeal. Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing is overruled.