NATHANIAL REGGISH v. JOYCE STEPHENS (2026)

OPINION

A jury found in favor of Appellee Joyce Stephens on her conversion claim against Appellant Nathanial Reggish. The trial court signed a judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict that awarded Stephens $796,905.89. In three issues Reggish argues that (1) the evidence does not support a finding of an inter vivos gift; (2) Stephens's claims are precluded by the Texas Estates Code; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by severing Stephens's claims against another defendant into a separate cause of action. We conclude that the Texas Estates Code precludes Stephens's claims and reverse the trial court's judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a dispute between family members over the contents of a safe deposit box that was originally opened by the late Joyce Kezhaya. Kezhaya was the mother of four children: Jerry, Lexus, Valana, and Tommy. Reggish, the son of Valana, is Kezhaya's grandson, and Stephens is Kezhaya's niece.

On March 4, 2015, Kezhaya opened a safe deposit box at a local bank. On May 15, 2015, she added Stephens as an additional renter on the safe deposit box. The safe deposit rental agreement provided that “[a] box rented in the name of two persons, whether or not husband and wife, shall be under the control of each of them or the survivor as fully as though said box stood in his or her name alone.” Stephens did not know the exact contents of the safe deposit box at the time she was added to the account or at any time after that date. Stephens never had a key to the safe deposit box and never accessed the box. Kezhaya continued to access the safe deposit box on multiple occasions after adding Stephens to the account. It is unknown if she added anything to the box or took things out of the box at those times.

Kezhaya began having health issues in January 2019, and she executed a Last Will and Testament that named Reggish as independent executor. There was testimony at trial that Lexus and Valana were the only beneficiaries named in Kezhaya's 2019 will. Kezhaya was hospitalized in July 2019, and Reggish applied for an appointment of temporary guardianship over her. The probate court granted him temporary guardianship on August 7, 2019. Kezhaya died later that same day.

The following day, Reggish accessed the safe deposit box as Kezhaya's temporary guardian. He and Valana removed the contents of the safe deposit box. They invited Lexus to be present when they accessed the box, but she remained outside of the bank. There was no video recording of the removal of the box's contents. Reggish testified at trial that the box contained $16,000 in cash, a family Bible, and other trinkets. According to Reggish, he obtained a cashier's check in the amount of $16,000 from the cash in the box and deposited that amount into a trust account. Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000) was included in the inventory of Kezhaya's estate.

Although Lexus was not present at the time Reggish and Valana removed the contents of the box, Lexus testified at trial that she later observed the contents of the box at a hotel room. According to Lexus, the contents of the safe deposit box included forty rolls of cash with each roll consisting of $10,000.00. She also stated that the box contained an eight-carat diamond ring and many gold coins.

Stephens testified at trial that she planned to open the safe deposit box after Kezhaya's death as a “last goodbye” to her aunt. When she contacted the bank the day after Kezhaya died, Stephens learned that Reggish and Valana had removed the contents of the box. Stephens testified that she did not have any first-hand knowledge of the contents of the box, but she was seeking $382,000 based upon what other people told her was in the box.

Kezhaya's estate proceeded to probate, where Reggish was appointed as the independent executor of the estate. While the probate proceeding was pending, Stephens filed suit against Reggish and Valana in the probate court for conversion, fraud, and conspiracy. However, Stephens did not file a contest in the probate proceeding to Reggish's acting outside the scope of his authority as a guardian or the appointment of Reggish as the independent executor of the estate. Kezhaya's children entered into a mediated settlement agreement for the distribution of the estate property. The settlement agreement included the contents of the safe deposit box as set out in the inventory. The probate court signed a final judgment in Kezhaya's estate on March 29, 2021. The final judgment incorporated the settlement agreement, resolved all controversies, and finally disposed of all parties. Reggish did not receive anything from Kezhaya's estate.

On June 15, 2021, after the final judgment was signed in the probate proceeding, the probate court transferred Stephens's suit to the district court, having determined that the pleadings filed related to a cause of action outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the probate court. On June 25, 2021, the probate court rescinded the transfer, having determined that the pleadings related to a cause of action within the subject matter of the probate court. The probate court prepared a memorandum to explain the reason for rescinding the transfer order. In that memorandum, the probate court explained that Stephens's claims required a determination whether the contents of the safe deposit box belonged to Kezhaya at the time of her death, and, therefore, was a matter of probate law. The probate court further explained that if Reggish secured access to the safe deposit box as Kezhaya's guardian and took possession of the contents of the box, it would be reasonable to anticipate that the court would be required to determine if he acted within his authority as guardian to secure and safeguard the estate. Again, Stephens did not intervene in the probate proceeding to contest Reggish's authority as the guardian to enter the safe deposit box after Kezhaya's death nor did she contest his appointment as the executor of the estate or the distribution of the contents of the safe deposit box in the probate proceeding. Yet, Stephens's separate suit against Reggish, in his individual capacity, and Valana continued in the probate court.

On June 12, 2023, the probate court signed an order severing Stephen's cause of action against Reggish from her cause of action against Valana. Stephens's suit against Reggish proceeded to a jury trial on that same day. The jury found in Stephens's favor, and the trial court signed a final judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict.

Probate Court Proceedings

In the second issue, Reggish argues that Stephens's claims against him in probate court were precluded by the Texas Estates Code. We agree.

Probate Court Jurisdiction

In a county such as Collin County with a statutory probate court, the statutory probate court has exclusive jurisdiction of all “probate proceedings.” TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 32.005(a); see also Putnam v. Warren, No. 05-23-00235-CV, 2024 WL 3548512, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 26, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op). In addition, a cause of action “related to the probate proceeding” must be brought in a statutory probate court unless the jurisdiction of the statutory probate court is concurrent with the jurisdiction of a district court as provided by section 32.007 or with the jurisdiction of any other court. TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 32.005(a).

Stephens maintains that her claims against Reggish are related to Kezhaya's probate proceeding. The probate court noted that a claim of ownership resulting in a lifetime gift by a decedent required a determination of rights under probate law. The probate court concluded, therefore, that whether the contents of the safe deposit box belonged to Kezhaya at the time of her death was a matter of probate law. Pursuant to section 32.005(a) of the Estates Code, we also conclude that Stephens's claims against Reggish related to the probate of Kezhaya's estate, and the probate court had jurisdiction over her claims. See id.

Texas Estates Code

Reggish argues that while jurisdiction was proper in the probate court, Stephens's claims should have been brought in the probate proceedings that disposed of Kezhaya's assets. He contends that because Kezhaya's estate has been distributed, the provisions of the Texas Estates Code preclude Stephens's claims.

A claim against a decedent's estate may be presented to a personal representative of an estate at any time before the estate is closed if suit on the claim has not been barred by the general statutes of limitation. TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 355.001; see also § 355.201. A claim may also be presented by depositing the claim with the clerk. Id. § 355.002. There is nothing in the record to show that Stephens presented a claim to Reggish as representative of Kezhaya's estate or to the clerk before the estate was closed.

After an order for final partition and distribution of an estate has been made, a suit may not be commenced against the representative on a claim for money against the estate. Id. § 355.063(2). A judgment may not be rendered in favor of a claimant on a claim for money that has not been (1) legally presented to the personal representative of the estate; and (2) wholly or partly rejected by the representative. Id. § 355.065.

This case involves a dispute over whether Kezhaya made an inter vivos gift to Stephens of the contents of the safe deposit box. The probate court determined that resolution of the case involved a determination of whether the contents of the safe deposit box belonged to Kezhaya at the time of her death.

Reggish argues that Stephens's claims are precluded because she did not file a claim with Reggish as representative of the estate or the clerk before the final distribution of Kezhaya's estate. Stephens counters that the cited provisions of the Texas Estates Code are not applicable because she filed suit against Reggish individually rather than as a representative of Kezhaya's estate.

Reggish filed an application for temporary guardianship over Kezhaya. The probate court appointed an attorney ad litem for Kezhaya, held a hearing on the matter, and then appointed Reggish as temporary guardian over Kezhaya. The record shows that acting in his capacity as Kezhaya's temporary guardian, Reggish accessed the contents of the safe deposit box that named both Kezhaya and Stephens on the account.

As an account holder on the safe deposit box, Kezhaya was authorized to access the box and remove its contents. Likewise, Stephens was authorized as an account holder to access the box and remove its contents. If an estate holds or owns any property in common or as part owner with another, the personal representative of the estate is entitled to possession of the property in common with the other part owner or owners in the same manner as other owners in common or joint owners are entitled to possession of the property. TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 351.103. Section 351.103 authorized Reggish as Kezhaya's temporary guardian to access the safe deposit box. Therefore, although Stephens filed suit against Reggish individually, her claims involved his actions as temporary guardian over Kezhaya. We conclude that the cited provisions of the Texas Estates Code are applicable.

The record shows that Reggish signed the documents to access the contents of the safe deposit box as guardian over Kezhaya. Reggish then placed the money from the box in a trust account to be included as part of Kezhaya's estate. See TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 1204.108. There was no claim nor finding by the probate court that Reggish acted outside of his authority as guardian over Kezhaya in the probate proceeding. The probate court accepted the inventory provided by Reggish that included $16,000, the contents of the safe deposit box. Those assets were distributed to Kezhaya's children pursuant to the settlement agreement, and the probate court signed a final judgment disposing of Kezhaya's estate.

There is nothing in the record before us to suggest that Stephens was unaware that Reggish accessed the safe deposit box as temporary guardian of Kezhaya or that there were probate proceedings pending. Stephens's claims relate to the assets contained in the safe deposit box that were accessed by Reggish as Kezhaya's temporary guardian and distributed as part of Kezhaya's estate. Stephens acknowledges that she asked for a finding, in her suit against Reggish in his individual capacity, that the contents of the safe deposit box were not property of the probate estate. Therefore, by her own acknowledgement, Stephens's individual claims against Reggish were actually against the estate through Reggish in his capacity as a representative of Kezhaya's estate.

Based upon the record before us, we conclude that this case involves assets that were related to and distributed as part of Kezhaya's estate. Pursuant to sections 355.001 and 355.002, Stephens should have presented her claim to Reggish, as representative of Kezhaya's estate, in the probate proceeding before the estate closed. See TEX. EST. CODE ANN. §§ 355.001, 355.002. She failed to do so. Accordingly, Stephens's claims against Reggish are precluded. See id. §§ 355.063(2), 355.065(1). We sustain Reggish's second issue. Because of our disposition of the second issue, we need not reach the first and third issues. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

Conclusion

Having concluded that Stephens's claims are precluded under the Texas Estates Code, we reverse the trial court's judgment and render judgment that Stephens take nothing on her claims against Reggish.

CAROLYN WRIGHT JUSTICE, ASSIGNED