In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-23-00342-CV
IN THE ESTATE OF LIZZIE BONITA TAYLOR, DECEASED
On Appeal from the 20th District Court
Milam County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV41513, Honorable John Youngblood, Presiding
February 21, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Charles Leon Williams and Angela Murray (W&M) appeal from the trial court’s
summary judgment dismissing, with prejudice, their “claims and causes of action.” The
latter apparently consisted of an interest in the estate of Lizzie Bonita Taylor. Lizzie died
in 2021 with neither issue nor a spouse. That resulted in Esther Williams, Lizzie’s half-
sister, initiating an action for letters of administration and to declare the decedent’s heirs.
W&M filed an answer, claiming to be Lizzie’s kin or kindred. A short time later, Esther
filed both a no-evidence and traditional motion for summary judgment seeking to dispose
1 Because this matter was transferred from the Third Court of Appeals, we apply its precedent when
it conflicts with that of the Seventh Court of Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
of their claims. The trial court granted same without specifying the particular ground upon
which it acted. W&M appealed. We affirm.
Background
According to the appellate record, Charles Leon Franklin and Fannie Mae Franklin
raised Lizzie, who was purportedly born in 1960. They did so after being asked by Lizzie’s
mother, Nola Fae Jones, to care for the child. Nola was Fannie’s sister. Lizzie was not
the only child of Nola, however. She had another, the aforementioned Esther.
According to W&M, Charles Leon Franklin adopted Lizzie. He did not do so in a
formal sense, though. Rather, Lizzie became his child through the legal concepts of
equitable adoption and adoption by estoppel. And, purportedly being kin of Charles,
W&M was kin of Lizzie. As her kin, they were capable of inheriting from her, or so they
thought. Esther believed otherwise, resulting in her motion to dispose of their claims via
summary judgment.
Analysis
Through their sole issue, W&M contend the trial court erred in entering summary
judgment dismissing their claims. Allegedly, material issues of fact pretermitted
dismissal. We overrule the issue.
The standards of review are those discussed in First United Pentecostal Church
of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214, 219-20 (Tex. 2017). We apply them here. One
other rule merits comment. When the movant asserts multiple grounds and the trial court
fails to specify the one or ones deemed meritorious, the appellant must disprove the
validity of each ground. Lee v. AG Tex. Farm Credit Servs., No. 07-21-00129-CV, 2021
Tex. App. LEXIS 9789, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 8, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.);
2
Young v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 03-15-00261-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS
7974, at *7-8 (Tex. App.—Austin July 28, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (the same). That
said, we turn to the matter at hand.
Among the multiple grounds urged by Esther in her motion, one involved the
controlling body of law. She urged: “Texas Courts have long held that in the
circumstances of an amendment to a statute affecting a preexisting adoption, that there
may not be an expansion or enlargement of the inheritance rights of the adoptive parent
from the adopted child.” She also cited two cases allegedly supporting the proposition,
Farrier v. Calvert, 315 S.W.2d 40 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1958, writ refused n.r.e.) and
Decker v. Williams, 215 S.W.2d 679 (Tex. Civ. App. Austin 1948, writ ref’d). If accurate,
the argument would be material because, historically, a parent could not inherit from a
child adopted under the principles of equity and estoppel at issue here. See Heien v.
Crabtree, 369 S.W.2d 28, 30 (Tex. 1963) (so holding). The legislature changed that rule
in 2017, for it then enacted legislation defining “adopted child” to mean a child adopted
through statutory procedures or equity and estoppel. See TEX. ESTATES CODE ANN. §
201.054(e)(1)(A)&(B). That change coupled with the language in § 201.054(a) (enacted
in 2014) now enables parents and their kin to inherit. See id. at § 201.054(a) (stating that
“[t]he adoptive parent or parents and their kindred inherit from and through the adopted
child as if the adopted child were the natural child of the adoptive parent or parents”).
So, if the laws in existence at the time of adoption controlled, as urged by Esther,
then W&M may not be capable of inheriting from Lizzie irrespective of the changes to
§ 201.054 of the Estates Code. That made Esther’s summary judgment ground rather
important and meriting comment. Yet, W&M did not address it, Farrier or Decker, or the
3
proposition that the laws of inheritance from an adopted child freeze at the time of
adoption. Instead, they argued that: 1) “[b]oth the legislature and courts have long
recognized that adoptive and natural children have a ‘coequal’ status in Texas”; 2 2) courts
should change their stance and allow parents and kin of parents to inherit from equitably
adopted children since statute now allows it; 3) “[w]hile the [2017] amendment makes
very clear the legislature’s intent that ‘acts of estoppel’ and ‘equitable adoption’ hold the
same weight in relation to establishing a child’s adoption, it did not, as the Appellee
claims, ‘change the rules of the game’ in any significant way”; and 4) “[t]he Appellee
mistakenly relies on several cases that hold that an adopted child’s rights to inherit
property from his adoptive parents are determined by the laws in place at the time of
the adoptive parent’s death . . . [but] [t]his case does not involve the Decedent’s right
to inherit from Mr. Franklin,” the parent. (Emphasis added).
Again, nothing is said of Farrier and Decker and their indication that the inheritance
rights of parents are those prescribed by statute existing at the time of adoption,
irrespective of later amendment. Is that an accurate interpretation of those opinions? Is
that still the law? Does (or did) the rule ever apply to adoption either equitable or by
estoppel since neither are actually statutory adoptions? These and related topics go
undiscussed.
And, that both Farrier and Decker emanated from the Third Court of Appeals is of
further consequence. We, as a transferee court, are bound to follow its precedent. See
2 This may be true when comparing statutorily adopted children with those naturally born. Yet, it is
not true regarding children adopted through the judicially created principles involved here. See Dampier v.
Yearnd, 493 S.W.3d 118, 125 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (recognizing that adoption by
estoppel does not confer the legal status of parent and child for all purposes).
4
Mischke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251, 254 (Tex. 2022) (observing that a court to which
a cause is transferred must abide by the precedent of the transferring court); TEX. R. APP.
P. 41.3 (same).
The described circumstance means W&M did not carry their burden to illustrate
the invalidity of every ground upon which the trial court could have acted. Thus, we affirm
the summary judgment.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Parker, J., concurring in the result.
5