- 28 -
Furthermore, even if the documents buttressed the estate’s
argument, denial of their admission would be appropriate on
grounds of prejudice to respondent. By submitting the documents
after trial, the estate deprived respondent of any opportunity to
examine or question them during the proceeding. In fact, the
items were not proffered until after respondent had filed both
opening and reply briefs. Furthermore, it is clear from the
record that the will and trust documents were available to the
estate at least a year prior to trial in the instant case. The
estate offers no explanation or excuse as to why the materials
could not have been exchanged and dealt with in accordance with
the procedures set forth in Rule 91 and the Court’s standing
pretrial order. We normally do not countenance such tardiness.
The Court will deny the estate’s motion to reopen.
The fifth category drawn upon by estate is the familial
relationship between decedent and Mr. Greene and the presumption
related thereto under Texas law. As stated in the following oft-
cited pronouncement, Texas courts adhere to a rule under which:
“There is, however, a presumption that a parent intends to make a
gift to his child if the parent delivers possession, conveys
title, or purchases property in the name of a child.” Woodworth
v. Cortez, 660 S.W.2d 561, 564 (Tex. App. 1983); see also
Richardson v. Laney, 911 S.W.2d 489, 492 (Tex. App. 1995); Oadra
v. Stegall, 871 S.W.2d at 891; Masterson v. Hogue, 842 S.W.2d
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011