Leticia R. Benavides v. Shirley Hale Mathis, as Temporary Guardian of the Estate of Carlos Y. Benavides, Jr. And Carlos Benavides, III, Tomas Benavides and Ana B. Galo, as Co-Trustees of the Benavides Family Mineral Trust
Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00523-CV
Leticia R. BENAVIDES,
Appellant
v.
Carlos BENAVIDES, III, and Ana B. Galo, as Co-Trustees of the Benavides Family Mineral
Carlos BENAVIDES, III, Tomas Benavides and Ana B. Galo,
as Co-Trustees of the Benavides Family Mineral Trust,
Appellees
From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012CVQ000427-D4
Honorable Oscar (O.J.) Hale, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 8, 2014
AFFIRMED
The dispositive issue in this appeal, “whether income distributions paid to Carlos [Y.
Benavides, Jr.] from a family trust are his separate property or are community property,” has
previously been decided by this court in Benavides v. Mathis, 433 S.W.3d 59, 62 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2014, pet. filed). Because this court’s holding, that the distributions are Carlos’s separate
property, is law of the case, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
04-14-00523-CV
BACKGROUND
This court’s prior opinion sets forth the relevant background facts as follows:
Leticia [R. Benavides] is the wife of Carlos Y. Benavides, Jr. There are no
children from their marriage; however, Carlos has three adult children from his first
marriage. Years before Carlos and Leticia’s marriage, the Benavides Family
Mineral Trust was created, in 1990, to hold in trust, manage, and control
approximately 126,000 acres of mineral estate for its beneficiaries. Carlos, who is
one of several participating beneficiaries under the trust, receives monthly
payments of the net balance (after payment of certain expenses) of revenues from
the trust estate.
On October 14, 2011, a Webb County Court at Law appointed [Shirley
Hale] Mathis as temporary guardian of Carlos’s person and estate. Subsequently,
Mathis notified the trust’s co-trustees of her appointment and demanded that all
funds distributable to Carlos be distributed to her. In February 2012, counsel for
Leticia wrote to the co-trustees asking that they deliver to Leticia one-half of all
distributions owed to Carlos on the grounds that all trust distributions during the
marriage were community property; thus, one-half of the distributions were owed
to her. The co-trustees refused. About a month later, counsel for Leticia then made
the same demand of Mathis. Mathis refused, and Leticia filed the underlying
lawsuit.
Id.
In this appeal, Leticia challenges the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment in
favor of Carlos Y. Benavides, III, Tomas Benavides, and Ana B. Galo, who are the co-trustees of
the trust. 1 In its first order, the trial court granted summary judgment with regard to Leticia’s claim
against the co-trustees for breach of fiduciary duty and dismissed the claim. In its second order,
the trial court granted summary judgment with regard to the co-trustees’ claim for declaratory
relief, finding as a matter of law that all distributions of income from the trust constituted Carlos’s
separate property.
1
In the prior appeal, we affirmed a summary judgment in favor of Mathis which had been severed from the claims in
the underlying lawsuit against the co-trustees to make the summary judgment in favor of Mathis final and appealable.
Id. at 62 & n.1.
-2-
04-14-00523-CV
DISCUSSION
Leticia’s breach of fiduciary duty claim was premised on her contention that she was
entitled to receive one-half of Carlos’s income distributions from the trust because those
distributions were community property. As previously noted, however, this court already held that
those distributions are Carlos’s separate property. Id.; see also Benavides v. Mathis, No. 04-13-
00270-CV, 2014 WL 1242512, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 26, 2014, pet. filed) (mem.
op.) (affirming summary judgment in a related appeal based on prior holding). In reaching that
holding, this court rejected each of the arguments raised in Leticia’s brief contending that the
distributions are community property. Benavides, 433 S.W.3d at 63-66.
“Under the law of the case doctrine, a court of appeals is ordinarily bound by its initial
decision if there is a subsequent appeal in the same case; but a determination to revisit an earlier
decision is within the discretion of the court under the particular circumstances of each case.”
Gotham Ins. Co. v. Warren E & P, Inc., No. 12-0452, 2014 WL 1190049, at *3 n.8 (Tex. Mar. 21,
2014). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise our discretion to revisit our
earlier decision. See id.
CONCLUSION
Because the income distributions paid to Carlos from the trust are Carlos’s separate
property, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
-3-