Court Opinion

ID: 9664984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:35:53.630545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:11.871848
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
JOY, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The appellees are claiming title through C. • N. Hodges to the Philippine estate of Hodges’ deceased wife, contrary to the judgment of the District Court of Hunt County, Texas, on July 10, 1963, vesting such estate in appellants. Appellants are entitled to injunctive relief to compel the appellees to respect and comply with that judgment. We have held that the Hunt County judgment was “binding on the ap-pellees so far as the Texas property is concerned but not on the Philippines property.” The agreed judgment that is, in effect a contract, bound appellees in reference to the properties of the Linnie Jane Hodges Estate without reference to the si-tus of properties in that estate. Appellants, as I now view the record, are not contending that the Hunt County judgment determined the extent of interest of the Linnie Jane Hodges Estate, as this court states in its opinion. Contrary to the Hunt County judgment, appellees are asserting a claim to the Linnie Jane Hodges Estate which is directly opposed to and in repudiation of the provisions of the Hunt County judgment.
The former suit, Cause No. 26,180, was filed in the 9th District Court of Hunt County, Texas, in 1957 after the death of Linnie Jane Hodges, the wife of C. N. Hodges. The appellants and their predecessors in interest comprising all of the re-maindermen named in the will of Linnie Jane Plodges were plaintiffs. C. N. Hodges, in his personal capacity, was the sole defendant. He was served with process and entered his appearance. The purpose of the suit was to obtain a construction of the will of Linnie Jane Hodges and a declaratory judgment with respect to the rights of C. N. Hodges as life tenant and of appellants as remaindermen under the will. The case remained pending from 1957 through 1962 during which time apparently efforts were being made to settle the family dispute. On August 9, 1962, C. N. Hodges executed an affidavit renouncing his right as life tenant in his deceased wife’s estate causing the renunciation to be filed in the probate proceedings in both the Philippine and Texas courts. Thereafter, an agreed judgment was prepared embodying the terms of the compromise and settlement agreement by which the Hunt County litigation was to be finally terminated. The proposed agreed judgment was signed and approved by C. N. Hodges and by the attorneys of record for all parties. On December 25, 1962, the settlement was complete, lacking only the formal entry of the agreed judgment, when C. N. Hodges died.
After his death the Probate Court of Lubbock County, Texas, appointed an administrator of his estate who was substituted as defendant in the Hunt County litigation and who filed an application in the Lubbock County Probate Court for authority to carry out and complete the settlement agreement which C. N. Hodges had made during his lifetime. The application to conclude the settlement having been granted by the court, the agreed judgment settling the litigation bearing the written approval of J. A. Hodges, administrator, as well as the approval of the attorneys representing both plaintiffs and defendant, was thereafter rendered and entered by the District Court of Hunt County, Texas, on July 10, 1963. In the judgment the court found and adjudicated that C. N. Hodges, during his lifetime, renounced his right as a devisee and legatee under his wife’s will; that the renunciation was valid and that its effect was to accelerate and vest the remainder interests which had been devised to the appellants under Paragraphs Fourth and Fifth of Mrs. Hodges’ will so that such bequests became effective as of the date of her death on May 23, 1957.
*274It was after this judgment had been entered that the appellee Joe Hodges, “in behalf of himself and other heirs of the C. N. Hodges Estate”, with knowledge of the renunciation of C. N. Hodges, filed a claim in the Linnie Jane Hodges Estate proceedings in the Philippines that C. N. Hodges was the “sole heir” of his wife’s estate and entitled to 100% thereof, or in the alternative was a “forced heir” and entitled to one half of the estate under the Philippine Law. These claims constituted a repudiation of the renunciation executed by C. N. Hodges on August 9, 1962, and filed in the Philippine court and the Texas court. These claims are in direct conflict with the settlement agreement approved by C. N. Hodges and incorporated in the agreed judgment of the District Court of Hunt County, Texas.
The renunciation signed by C. N. Hodges was not limited to or restricted by geographical boundaries nor confined to any type or amount of property. The renunciation having been filed by C. N. Hodges in both the Philippine and Texas courts lends further weight to the unambiguous language of the instrument that the intention of C. N. Hodges was to renounce his claim to all of the properties of the estate of his wife.
In my opinion the District Court of Hunt County, Texas, having acquired in personam jurisdiction over C. N. Hodges and appellants, also had jurisdiction to determine the respective interests and rights of those parties in the Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges irrespective of the location or nature of the properties held by the estate. McElreath v. McElreath, 162 Tex. 190, 345 S.W.2d 722 (Sup.Ct.); Hall v. Jones, 54 S.W.2d 835 (Tex.Civ.App. n.w.h.); Greer v. Greer, 189 S.W.2d 104 (Tex.Civ.App.), Id., 144 Tex. 528, 191 S.W.2d 848; Milner v. Schaefer, 211 S.W.2d 600 (Tex.Civ.App. refused); Allis v. Allis, 378 F.2d 721, Fifth Cir. 1967; Baughan v. Goodwin, 162 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Civ.App., refused w.o.m.).
The case of Toledo Society for Crippled Children v. Hickok, 152 Tex. 578, 261 S.W.2d 692, 43 A.L.R.2d 553, relied upon by appellees is distinguishable upon the facts. There was no agreed judgment involved in that case as here and no settlement agreement as in Milner v. Schaefer, supra. In Texas an agreed judgment is a contract between the parties to the judgment. Burnaman v. Heaton, 150 Tex. 333, 240 S.W.2d 288; McClain v. Hickey, 418 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.Civ.App. refused n.r.e.); Everett v. Everett, 309 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Civ.App. refused n.r.e.); Plumly v. Plumly, 210 S.W.2d 177 (Tex.Civ.App. dismissed); 25 Tex.Jur. 387, Sec. 25, 26. When an agreed judgment is pleaded a contract is likewise pleaded. Milner v. Schaefer, supra. As a contract therefore, the agreed judgment is binding upon the parties and their privies and may be specifically enforced by decrees in personam whether or not it involves property in a foreign jurisdiction. Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch 148, 3 L.Ed. 181.
This was a family compromise and settlement of a law suit, and as such has been looked upon with favor by our courts. Camoron v. Thurmond, 56 Tex. 22 (Tex.Com.App.). See also Hall v. Jones, Greer v. Greer, Milner v. Schaefer, Allis v. Allis, Baughan v. Goodwin, all supra. In my view a court having jurisdiction in person-am over C. N. Hodges could compel him to comply with his agreement without regard to the ultimate effect upon properties situated in the Philippines or elsewhere. The fact that the claim asserted against the Linnie Jane Hodges Estate in the Philippines is a derivative action or claim made after the death of C. N. Hodges by his heirs and devisees cannot alter the legal rights involved. The appellees can no more repudiate the settlement agreement made by their ancestor than the ancestor himself. They stand in the identical legal shoes.
Nor do I agree with our disposition of the tort claim alleged in Count 'One of appellants’ position. The trial court in granting summary judgment for defendants in effect sustained a general demurrer. *275Simpson v. City of Abilene, 388 S.W.2d 760 (Tex.Civ.App. refused n.r.e.). Taking the allegations of the petitions as true as we must in testing the sufficiency of the pleading to state a cause of action, the sole question is whether appellees have the right, as a matter of law, to file an adverse claim of ownership in the Philippine probate proceedings for the avowed purpose of “sweating the Higdons out” until they were ready to “give up or sell out”. In my opinion appellees do not have such a right. The filing of such a claim in the court of a foreign country as part of the conspiracy alleged by appellants, is wrongful and the pleading states a cause of action on which appellants were entitled to go to trial in the district court. This being a summary judgment we are bound by the rules enunciated in Great American Reserve Ins. Co. v. San Antonio Plumbing Supply Co., 391 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.Sup.Ct.1965) and Rule 166-A, Texas Civil Rules of Civil Procedure.
The claim filed in the foreign country is wrongful because the agreed judgment constituted a contract and is enforceable as such in addition to the fact that as a judgment it is res judicata and binding by es-toppel as well. Milner v. Schaefer, supra. The malicious filing of a claim in a. foreign country which interferes with property rights created by contract and by an agreed judgment constitutes a tort. Whether or not it constitutes a malicious abuse of process is unimportant. The wrongful act of the appellees in wrongfully interfering with the contractual and property rights of appellants by filing the adverse ownership claims in the foreign jurisdiction as part of a deliberate scheme of attempted fraud is a “cognizable tort for which the law will provide a remedy.” 55 T.J.2d, Torts, Sec. 7, P. 631; Southern Traffic Bureau v. Thompson, 232 S.W.2d 742 (Tex.Civ.App. refused n.r.e.); Snodgrass v. American Surety Co. of New York, 156 S.W.2d 1004 (Tex.Civ.App. n.w.h.); also see Phillips v. Murchison, 383 F.2d 370, Second Cir. 1967, Cert.Den., 390 U.S. 958, 88 S.Ct. 1050, 19 L.Ed.2d 1154.
I would grant the motion for rehearing and reverse and remand in accordance herewith.