When a party to a mediated settlement refuses to fulfill a condition within their control, can they later use that failure to void the agreement? This question often arises when settlement regret sets in after the ink has dried. Texas probate disputes frequently involve family members who reach agreements during emotional mediation sessions, only to reconsider their decisions days later. The human tendency to seek escape routes from unfavorable deals becomes particularly pronounced when estate distributions are at stake.
The recent case of Estate of Gus W. Riefler, Deceased, 540 S.W.3d 626 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2017), provides an opportunity to consider how Texas courts handle deliberate non-compliance with settlement conditions—particularly when a guardian uses his exclusive control over a required approval to manufacture grounds for voiding an otherwise binding family settlement agreement.
Facts & Procedural History
Gus Riefler died leaving a will that bequeathed his entire estate to his wife Pauline. Unfortunately, Pauline had predeceased him by ten months, and the will named no contingent beneficiary. This created an intestacy situation requiring determination of the rightful heirs.
The decedent’s stepdaughter Claudia, whom he had raised since she was five years old, filed applications in Cooke County seeking determination that she was the decedent’s child through adoption by estoppel and therefore his sole heir. She sought appointment of her son Danny as independent administrator. The decedent’s sister Mary, through her guardian husband Ronald, contested these claims and filed competing applications asserting that Mary and other blood relatives were the rightful heirs.
Before any court rulings, all parties attended a ten-hour mediation session. The participants included Claudia’s four sons (Claudia having died during the pendency of the proceedings), Ronald as Mary’s guardian, and the decedent’s nieces and nephew through his predeceased sister. The mediation resulted in comprehensive settlement agreements resolving all disputes. The agreements recognized Claudia as the sole heir through adoption by estoppel, appointed Danny as administrator, and distributed $440,000 to Ronald (as Mary’s guardian) and nephew James, with the remaining $920,000 going to Claudia’s sons.
The settlement contained a specific provision making the distribution to the guardianship “subject to approval of the Dallas County Probate Court,” where Mary’s guardianship was pending. That court had previously authorized Ronald to act in the Cooke County proceedings but required that “any settlement of the above matter be submitted to this Court for review before disposition of the Cooke County litigation.”
After signing the agreements, Ronald filed objections claiming the settlement was void because he had not obtained the Dallas probate court’s approval—and explicitly stated he would not seek such approval. He also claimed mental incapacity due to prescription medication and alleged fraud regarding asset values. The Cooke County court nevertheless approved the settlement and entered final judgment enforcing its terms. Ronald appealed.
The Guardian’s Duty Under the Texas Estates Code
The Texas Estates Code establishes specific duties and powers for guardians managing ward property. Under Section 1151.105, a guardian has an affirmative duty to use ordinary diligence to collect any claim or property due to the guardianship estate. This obligation extends to pursuing approvals necessary to secure settlement proceeds for the ward’s benefit.
Section 1151.102 governs a guardian’s authority to compromise claims on behalf of the ward. The statute requires that guardians obtain court approval before making settlements involving the ward’s property. A guardian may compromise or settle claims when two conditions are met: the guardian considers the action in the ward’s best interests, and the action receives court authorization. These requirements protect vulnerable wards from potentially disadvantageous agreements while allowing guardians flexibility to resolve disputes efficiently.
The Dallas probate court’s order in this case expanded Ronald’s authority beyond typical guardian powers. The order specifically authorized him “to act on behalf of Mary Theresa Ayers in all those legal proceedings currently pending in Cooke County involving the estate.” This broad language encompassed authority to negotiate and enter binding settlement agreements, subject to the court’s review requirement.
Waiver Through Deliberate Non-Performance
Texas law recognizes waiver as the intentional relinquishment of a known right or intentional conduct inconsistent with claiming that right. The doctrine prevents parties from benefiting from their own deliberate failures to perform. Waiver occurs either through express renunciation or through silence and inaction demonstrating an intention to yield the right.
Ronald’s post-mediation conduct presented a textbook example of waiver through deliberate non-performance. He possessed exclusive control over whether to seek the Dallas court’s approval. As Mary’s guardian, only he could present the settlement to that court. Yet he explicitly announced he “will not request” such approval. He never sought the approval during the months the case remained pending in Cooke County. He never requested a continuance to obtain the approval.
The appellate court recognized this tactic for what it was—an attempt to manufacture grounds for voiding an unfavorable agreement. By refusing to perform a condition within his exclusive control, Ronald waived any right to complain about the absence of that approval. Texas courts consistently reject such gamesmanship. A party cannot deliberately prevent a condition’s occurrence and then claim the agreement fails for lack of that condition.
When Does a Missing Approval Make an Agreement Void Versus Voidable?
The distinction between void and voidable agreements carries significant consequences in Texas law. A void contract represents a nullity from inception—it never legally exists and cannot be ratified. A voidable contract, however, remains valid and enforceable until properly repudiated. Voidable agreements can be ratified through conduct or acquiescence.
Ronald argued the settlement was void without the Dallas court’s approval. The appellate court disagreed, finding the agreement merely voidable at most. The Dallas court had authorized Ronald to act in the Cooke County proceedings. This authorization, though requiring subsequent review, conferred sufficient power to negotiate and enter binding agreements. The review requirement created a condition for final approval, not a limitation on Ronald’s capacity to contract.
probate attorneys. We help clients navigate the probate process. Call today for a free confidential consultation, (210) 436-6601.
Our San Antonio Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with guardianship disputes. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process. We have years of combined experience we can use to support and guide you with probate and estate matters. Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation.
Disclaimer
The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information presented may not apply to your situation and should not be acted upon without consulting a qualified probate attorney. We encourage you to seek the advice of a competent attorney with any legal questions you may have.
