Estate of Mathis, 543 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2018, no pet.).
The parties to a contested probate proceeding
solved their issues by entering into a family settlement agreement. This
agreement provided for the disposition of the decedent’s estate and
released all claims and causes of action between them involving the
decedent “from the beginning of time through the date of the execution
of this Agreement.” Subsequently one of the parties attempted to bring
claims based on conduct which occurred prior to the date of the
agreement. The trial court dismissed the claims and the unhappy party
appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. The court explained
that the agreement barred claims which predated the agreement especially
because the party did not even seek revocation of the agreement in the
first place. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s
determination that the party was not responsible for reasonable
attorney’s fees because Rule 91a mandates that the prevailing party
recover attorney fees unless a governmental entity or public official is
involved. Thus, the case was remanded to the trial court to determine
the amount of the reasonable and necessary attorney fees.
Moral: If a party to a settlement agreement
seeks to pursue matters already settled, the party must first set aside
the agreement.