Opinion
No. 08-19-00231-CV
07-17-2020
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH ABRAHAM, JR., a/k/a JOSEPH (SIB) ABRAHAM, JR.
Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1 of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 2014-CPR02054) MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellee Albert Bloxom, dependent administrator of the Estate of Joseph "Sib" Abraham, Jr., has moved to dismiss this appeal filed by William "Billy" Abraham, alleging that this controversy is moot. We agree. This appeal will be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
This is the latest in a series of appeals dealing with ownership of a property located on 415 E. 7th Street in Austin (the Property). The Property was named as an asset in the Estate of Joseph "Sib" Abraham, Jr. (Sib), who died on July 4, 2014. Sib's son William Abraham (Billy) claimed ownership of the Property during probate proceedings by virtue of an apparent deed from Sib that was purportedly signed by Sib on January 7, 2013, but that was not notarized until three or four months after Sib's death and was not recorded in Travis County until November 7, 2014. Later, Sib's wife and Billy's mother Margaret Abraham (Margaret) executed an assumption deed attempting to convey her interest in the Property to Billy, subject to him assuming the debt on a note.
Bloxom filed a petition to invalidate Margaret's deed and moved for summary judgment declaring the transfer void. The probate court granted summary judgment declaring Margaret's attempted transfer of her interest in the Property to Billy void. Bloxom also moved for summary judgment to have the 2013 deed declared invalid because of the notarization defect and because the Property was community property and Margaret had not consented to the 2013 transfer. The probate court granted summary judgment in favor of Bloxom and declared the 2013 void as well. Both Margaret and Billy appealed. See In re Estate of Abraham, 583 S.W.3d 374, 375-76 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2019, pet. denied) (Margaret's appeal docketed as Cause No. 08-18-00032-CV, hereinafter Abraham I); In re Estate of Abraham, 583 S.W.3d 890, 895-98 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2019, pet. denied) (Billy's appeal in Cause No. 08-18-00089-CV, hereinafter Abraham II).
We affirmed the summary judgments in both appeals on August 21, 2019. We held in both Abraham I and Abraham II that Margaret's attempt to transfer her interest in the Property to Billy in 2016 was invalid because Margaret had not followed the proper statutory procedure in attempting to convey the property after Joseph's death, which meant there had been no transfer and the Property remained as part of the estate. See Abraham I, 583 S.W.3d at 377-79; Abraham II, 583 S.W.3d at 895-98. Likewise, we held in Abraham II that Billy could not claim an interest in the Property by virtue of a purported 2013 deed from Sib to Billy because the Property was community property from the marriage of Sib and Margaret, and Margaret's failure to join in signing the 2013 deed meant that 2013 deed and the unilateral conveyance of the Property from Sib to Billy were void. See Abraham II, 583 S.W.3d at 895-98. Margaret and Billy both filed petitions for discretionary review with the Texas Supreme Court.
On February 7, 2020, the Texas Supreme Court denied Margaret's petition for discretionary review in Abraham I.
On September 3, 2019, the probate court issued a decree authorizing the sale of the Property upon compliance by the purchaser with the terms of the sale described the Report of Sale. Margaret and Billy filed notices of appeal from the decree, and the instant appeal was docketed as Cause No. 08-19-00231-CV. Neither Margaret nor Billy sought any type of interim relief from this Court pending appeal.
After Billy filed his Appellant's Brief in this case, the Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for discretionary review in Abraham I, and Appellee Bloxom asked us to abate this appeal pending a decision from the Texas Supreme Court in Abraham II. On February 25, 2020, we issued an order abating this appeal pending decisions from the Texas Supreme Court on the petitions for discretionary review in Abraham II.
On March 2, 2020, the Estate's sale of the Property to a third party was consummated.
On March 6, 2020, the Texas Supreme Court denied Billy's petition for discretionary review in Abraham II. On March 12, 2020, we lifted our abatement order and reinstated this appeal.
After the abatement was lifted, on March 18, 2020, Appellee Bloxom filed the motion to dismiss that is at issue in this opinion. In the motion, Bloxom alleged that the controversy over the Property that was subject to the instant appeal and the appeals in Abraham I and II was now moot because the Estate sold the Property to a third party and neither Margaret nor Billy sought an emergency stay, a supersedeas bond, or another order prior to the sale that would otherwise suspend the enforcement of the trial court's orders pending appeal.
Billy resisted the motion, in part, based on the fact that the Texas Supreme Court had not yet ruled on his motion for rehearing challenging the denial of his petition for discretionary review. On May 15, 2020, the Texas Supreme Court denied the motion for rehearing in Abraham II.
DISCUSSION
The question before the Court is whether there remains a live controversy such that this appeal should continue. We note that by virtue of the Texas Supreme Court's denial of the petitions for discretionary review in Abraham I and II, those judgments adjudicating title to the Property are final. Further, the record here indicates that the Property's sale was closed on March 2, 2020.
The sale of property during an appeal can moot the appeal if the sale extinguishes a controversy regarding title. See Dominguez v. Dominguez, 583 S.W.3d 365, 371 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2019, pet. denied)(portion of appeal dealing with title controversy mooted by sale of the property during pendency of appeal because decision from the court of appeals could not "have a practical effect on the ownership rights of the property"). Here, both Margaret and Billy's Appellant's Briefs indicate that they are asking this Court to vacate the probate court's decree authorizing the sale of the Property. But the record does not indicate that Margaret or Billy ever obtained a stay or other type of injunctive relief that would have prevented the sale. A decision from this court could not have a practical effect at this juncture. Id.
Given that the Texas Supreme Court rendered final decisions adjudicating title in Abraham I and II, given that Abraham I and II establish that Billy does not have a valid interest in the Property and that the Property was properly part of the Estate, given that Margaret's and Billy's appeal in this case deals with the precise title dispute at issue in Abraham I and II, and given that the evidence attached to the motion to dismiss shows the Property has already been sold to a third party during the pendency of this appeal because the trial court's order was not stayed or otherwise superseded, we find we lack subject-matter jurisdiction on mootness grounds. Id.
The motion to dismiss is granted. This appeal is hereby dismissed.
GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice July 17, 2020 Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.