Dyer v. Eckols
Texas Court of Appeals
808 S.W.2d 531 (1991)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Sara Croom (defendant) caused a car accident that killed Lois Dyer. After the accident, Croom’s uncle died and left Croom one-tenth of his estate in his will. This inheritance was worth approximately $200,000. Aware that she might be sued for the car accident, Croom disclaimed the inheritance, causing it to be distributed among other relatives. Roland Dyer (plaintiff), Lois’s son, obtained a $1 million judgment against Croom for having caused his mother’s death. Roland then sued Croom, the estate (defendant), and the other relatives (defendants), claiming that they had conspired to defraud him of the $200,000 inheritance and that Croom’s disclaimer was a fraudulent transfer. Roland alleged that Croom had executed the disclaimer to cause the inheritance money to go to her relatives who, in turn, had agreed to use the money to help out Croom. This scheme, Roland claimed, avoided having any of the inheritance money go to Roland to pay down the judgment while still allowing Croom access to the money. The trial court found that the disclaimer was not a fraudulent transfer and that Croom was allowed to execute a disclaimer to avoid paying Roland, her creditor. Based on these findings, the trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed Roland’s claim. Roland appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Murphy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
