From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Addicks v. Addicks

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont
Dec 2, 2004
No. 09-04-123 CV (Tex. App. Dec. 2, 2004)

Summary

In Addicks v. Addicks, 266 Ill. 349, the testator gave to his two sons "to share alike the rent and income" of certain property "during their natural lives" and "after the death of my said sons, [naming them]," directed that the property be sold and the proceeds "be equally divided between all of my grandchildren, share and share alike."

Summary of this case from Kiesling v. White

Opinion

No. 09-04-123 CV

Submitted on November 17, 2004.

Opinion Delivered December 2, 2004.

On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 03-01-00775-CV.

Affirmed.

Roy E. Addicks, Jr., pro se, Beaumont, TX for Appellant.

Jay M. Wright, Conroe, TX for appellee.

Before McKEITHEN, C.J., BURGESS and GAULTNEY, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tex.R.App.P. 47.4.


Roy E. Addicks, Jr. appeals the final decree in a suit for divorce. The appeal is submitted on the record of the indigence hearing because the trial court sustained contests filed by the district clerk and the court reporter. See In re Arroyo, 988 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. 1998).

The appeal was submitted without briefs because the appellant failed to file his brief by the October 1, 2004, due date. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.8(a)(2). The appellant did not request an extension of time to file the brief. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.6(d). On October 27, 2004, we notified the parties that the appeal would be advanced without oral argument. See Tex.R.App.P. 39.9.

We have reviewed the record for fundamental error, and find none. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


Summaries of

Addicks v. Addicks

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont
Dec 2, 2004
No. 09-04-123 CV (Tex. App. Dec. 2, 2004)

In Addicks v. Addicks, 266 Ill. 349, the testator gave to his two sons "to share alike the rent and income" of certain property "during their natural lives" and "after the death of my said sons, [naming them]," directed that the property be sold and the proceeds "be equally divided between all of my grandchildren, share and share alike."

Summary of this case from Kiesling v. White

In Addicks v. Addicks, 266 Ill. 349, they are defined as follows: "Cross-remainders may be defined as remainders limited after particular estates to two or more persons in several parcels of land, or in several undivided shares in the same parcel of land, in such way that on the determination of the particular estates in any of the several parcels of undivided shares they remain over to the other grantees, and the reversioner or ulterior remainder-man is not let in till the determination of all the particular estates."

Summary of this case from Hunt v. Mitchell
Case details for

Addicks v. Addicks

Case Details

Full title:ROY E. ADDICKS, JR., Appellant v. CATHERINE M. ADDICKS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont

Date published: Dec 2, 2004

Citations

No. 09-04-123 CV (Tex. App. Dec. 2, 2004)

Citing Cases

Martin v. Casner

It created a life estate in the children of a deceased child per autre vie (Geist v. Huffendick, 272 Ill. 99;…

Kiesling v. White

Before analyzing the precise language of Martin Kiesling's will, it is appropriate to isolate the factors…