Moon v. Lesikar
Texas Court of Appeals
230 S.W.3d 800 (2007)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Woodrow V. Lesikar established a revocable family trust. Woodrow named himself and his son, Woody Lesikar (defendant), as co-trustees. Woodrow was to receive all the income from the trust assets during his lifetime. After Woodrow’s deaths, the trust’s assets would be distributed to various beneficiaries, including Woody and his sister Carolyn Ann Lesikar Moon (plaintiff). The trust specifically stated that 10,000 shares of stock in West Houston Airport Corporation would go into a trust for Woody. Several years later, Woodrow created a new trust agreement that modified, amended, and superseded the original trust agreement. This second trust was also a revocable trust for the benefit of identified family members, with Woodrow retaining trustee powers and income from the trust during his lifetime. This trust did not specifically mention the airport stock. The trust’s residuary, meaning any property not specifically given to someone else, was to be divided between Woody and Carolyn. After the second trust was created, Woodrow transferred the almost $200,000 worth of airport stock out of the second family trust and into a new trust that benefited only Woody’s children in exchange for $2,000 from Woody. When Woodrow later died, Carolyn sued, challenging several estate matters, including the transfer of the airport stock out of the family trust for such a small amount. The trial court granted summary judgment for Woody on the stock transfer, dismissing Carolyn’s claims relating to that transaction. Carolyn appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hudson, J.)
Concurrence (Guzman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.