In Hollis v. Hollis, the Texarkana Court of Appeals considered the question of who owned a ranch when mother and son disagreed.
Cattle in pasture / (Hannah Harrison/Texas A&M AgriLife)
Background
This lawsuit involves an ownership dispute over a 304-acre ranch (“the Ranch”) in Titus County. The Ranch was purchased in 1978 by Wayford and Reba Hollis, husband and wife.
According to their son, Robert, there was an oral agreement between Wayford and Robert that Wayford would purchase the Ranch, and Robert would stock it with his cattle, manage the operations, and repay Wayford with all proceeds from the cattle sales. Robert claimed their agreement was that once the property lien note was paid off, Robert would own 1/2 interest in the Ranch, and he would inherit the other 1/2 interest at Wayford’s death. Robert’s wife, Sherry, testified that he told her of this oral agreement at the time it was made, and paperwork with the USDA signed by both parties indicated Robert and Wayford were 50/50 partners in the operation.
Reba testified she and Wayford were close and discussed major decisions. She denied there was ever an oral agreement between Robert and Wayford and testified she had never heard anything about it. Instead, she testified that she and Wayford purchased the Ranch because they did not have a retirement program. She says Wayford found the Ranch, and Robert was not involved in the conversation or decision to purchase.
Robert said he brought his cattle to the Ranch and moved into the old house on the Ranch in 1980. Reba said that Wayford purchased the cattle to put on the Ranch and denies that Robert brought his own cattle with him. She also denied that money from the cattle sales paid the note on the Ranch.
Later, Robert and Sherry moved a trailer onto the Ranch. When the herd grew to over 100 head, Robert leased additional land. Cattle were sold primarily at the Hollis Family Production Sale, and the proceeds from the larger cattle sales went to Wayford. Some smaller cattle sale income went to the Ranch’s business account to pay expenses. Financial records show that Robert paid Wayford $823,785 in cattle income from 1978-2000. Wayford paid Robert a small salary from 1981-1999, totaling $185,785.
The property lien was released in 1993. Shortly after this, Robert and Sherry built a new $450,000 house on the property. Reba knew they were building a house before they broke ground, and she never objected, told them to stop, or claimed they were building on her property. Reba did, however, help hang wallpaper in the house. After the house was built, Reba told Robert to survey off an area for the house and they would deed it to him.
Their Ranch partnership was dissolved in 2000, and Robert said Wayford received the cattle located in Louisiana and Robert received the cattle on the Ranch and assumed $180,000 in notes related to the Ranch operation. Reba denied this, claiming that Wayford intended to sell the Ranch prior to his death, and that he had a will prepared but did not say anything to her about an agreement with Robert about the Ranch.
Wayford died in 2005. His will left “all of the farm property and all improvements thereon situated and belonging, located in Titus County, TX” to Robert. Robert said this language was his father keeping his word under their oral agreement. Robert said when the will was read, he told Reba and his sisters that he already owned 1/2 the Ranch, and after the will, owned the full 100%. Robert replaced the fence around the Ranch twice since Wayford’s death.
Robert’s sister, Lisa, testified that Robert never mentioned an agreement when they met with the attorney after Wayford’s death. She also testified she talked to Robert about Reba needing to sell some of the Ranch. Robert said he did not want her to do that because it was how he made his living, and he wanted to leave it to his children. He did not say anything about an agreement with their father to buy it.
After Wayford’s death, Reba tried to sell the Ranch twice. She executed a listing agreement in 2013, and said she did not really intend to sell it, but wanted to ascertain the value. In 2015, she called Robert to tell him she would give him something for the house, but she intended to sell the Ranch because she needed money. At that point, Robert and Sherry filed suit.
Litigation
Robert and Sherry filed a trespass to try title suit.
The jury sided with Robert and Sherry finding:
(1) Wayford and Robert entered into an oral agreement that Robert would manage the Ranch and pay Wayford all proceeds from sale cattle. When the note was paid, Robert would own 1/2 of the Ranch and at Wayford’s death, he would get the other 1/2.
(2) Robert and Sherry completed performance of the oral agreement by paying consideration, taking possession, and making permanent and valuable improvements on the Ranch.
(3) Reba was bound by the oral agreement because her name was on the deed, she was aware of the agreement being performed, and she was aware of the improvements at the time they were made.
(4) Reba received and accepted payment from the cattle sales with full knowledge or notice of the facts of the oral agreement.
(5) Wayford fully complied with the oral agreement.
(6) Robert and Sherry held peaceable and adverse possession and made use of the Ranch for 10 years after January 1, 1980.
(7) Robert and Sherry committed acts after 1993 that unmistakably asserted a claim of ownership.
(8) Robert and Sherry completed performance of the oral agreement in 1993.
The jury awarded Reba $9,000 on her counterclaim of payment of taxes on the Ranch but dismissed Reba’s remaining claims. The court entered judgment for Robert and Sherry and ordered title be granted to them.
Reba appealed.
Court of Appeals Opinion
The Texarkana Court of Appeals affirmed.
Disjunctive Instruction
First, Reba argued that the jury should have had the two claims–ownership by oral agreement and ownership by adverse possession–submitted disjunctively. She claimed these were mutually exclusive theories, and if the jury found an oral agreement, the jury could not also find adverse possession. The court disagreed.
The court explained that where an oral agreement is alleged, that does not automatically preclude a finding of adverse possession. The fact that the initial entry may have been permissive does not preclude a claimant’s possession from becoming adverse at a later date. Because of this, it was not factually consistent for Robert and Sherry to advance both the oral agreement and adverse possession causes of action.
Adverse Possession Findings
Next, Reba argued several insufficiencies related to the jury instructions on adverse possession. However, because she failed to challenge that adverse possession findings, the errors of which she complained were harmless. In other words, the court rejected these claims on a technicality based on Reba’s appellate arguments.
Limitation on Voir Dire
Reba claimed that the court improperly limited her voir dire questions related to Sherry’s brother, a prominent businessman in the community. Robert and Sherry filed a motion to exclude mention or reference to Sherry’s brother. The trial court granted that motion after it confirmed the brother would not be a witness in the case but allowed general questioning about whether jurors knew Sherry’s family members. Reba claimed that her inability to question jurors about their knowledge of or relationship to the brother, she was unable to obtain an impartial jury. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the court struck an appropriate balance between allowing Reba to ask questions while not informing the entire jury panel that Sherry was the sister of a prominent and influential person in the community. Also, Reba did not propose a different method of inquiry to avoid the issues of which she now complained.
Conclusion
Thus, the trial court decision was affirmed, and title to the Ranch was ordered to be granted to Robert and Sherry. Reba sought review at the Texas Supreme Court, but her petition was denied.
Key Takeaways
Although the appellate court opinion was based primarily on pleading issues and technicalities, the facts here illustrate several important takeaways.
First, all agreements should be in writing. A lot of argument, time, and money could likely have been avoided in this case had Wayford and Robert entered into a written agreement when the land was purchased. This type of agreement would protect both sides from this type of litigation. This is particularly important when agreements involve large sums of money or assets with high values, such as the land and cattle in this case.
Second, it is important for landowners to remember if anyone is using your land who does not have an ownership interest in the land, legal action should be considered quickly. Adverse possession law can result in loss of ownership of land if a landowner fails to act while a person uses their land without permission for a certain period of time (and other factors are met). To the extent anyone is on your property without permission, take action to avoid this type of issue.
Third, oral agreements about who will inherit at a person’s death are invalid. Texas law does not recognize oral wills. The fact that Wayford told Robert he would inherit the other half of the land at death would not, alone, have been enforceable. Here, Wayford had a will that provided the same, which resulted in ownership being granted to Robert. Without that will, however, that oral promise regarding the inheritance would have most likely been unenforceable.
Fourth, family members certainly can end up in legal disputes with each other. At presentations, people are often shocked when friends or family members sue each other. It happens more often than most people realize. Even if you are entering into an agreement or contract with a family member, put it in writing to protect your legal rights and the relationship should things go wrong.
