Archive for the ‘General’ Category

I Do?

October 5, 2009

Recently on a local news broadcast, I overheard the anchor comment on Houston’s own Chuck Knoblauch and his current legal troubles. What bothered me was not Chuck’s run-ins with the law, but the apparent lack of understanding demonstrated by the anchor. While commenting on Chuck’s on-going divorce, the Anchor noted that while Mr. And Mrs. Knoblauch were only common-law married, they were “still” going through divorce proceedings. This provided me a perfect chance to address a commonly misunderstood issue, Common-law marriage.

Right off the bat I think it’s important for us to define the term “common-law marriage.” Common-law Marriage is a marriage arrangement between a man and a woman without the formalities of the issuance of a license nor an official or ministerial ceremony. The courts of Texas have recognized common-law marriage as valid marriages for decades. Couples entering into common-law marriages are legally entitled to all the same property rights that attach to formal marriages.

Now that we know what Common-law Marriage is, we can focus on what it isn’t. I cannot tell you how many times I have had friends or acquaintances say to me that so-and-so has lived with his girlfriend for a couple of years now so “technically they are common-law married I guess.” I would say if there is one common misconception regarding common-law marriage, it’s that there is a time element involved. However, there is actually no time element involved at all. That’s right, you can live with your significant other for as little as one day and be considered common-law married.

 By now most of the single guys out there reading this are probably freaking out, however it is equally important to note that while living together is a requirement for establishment of common-law marriage, it is by no means exclusive. Equally important are the elements of an agreement to become husband and wife; and holding out to the public as husband and wife. Simply stated, the three elements of a common-law marriage are: (1) you have an agreement to be married; (2) after the agreement, you live together in Texas as husband and wife; and (3) you represent to others in Texas that you are married. The agreement to be married and the public and open holding out that you are husband and wife are as essential to a valid common-law marriage as the living together. Without these elements, there is no common-law marriage. Therefore, despite most single guys fears, you will never find yourself unknowingly common-law married since secrecy is inconsistent with the requirement that a couple hold themselves out to be living together as husband and wife.

So, as you can see, even living together for a single day will sustain a finding of common-law marriage as long as it was done under an agreement to be married and you made that fact known to the general public. All three elements must exist at the same time for a common-law marriage, and it does not exist until the concurrence of all three elements. Thus, merely living together is not enough to establish a common-law marriage. Similarly, just agreeing to be husband and wife, without living together, does not constitute a valid marriage.

Now then, the question becomes, and the part that apparently confused our local newscaster, does one have to go through a formal divorce to get out of an informal marriage? The answer is a resounding yes. There is no such thing as common-law divorce. Just as you share all the rights of a formal marriage, so must you share all the burdens regarding dissolving such a marriage.

Common-law marriage arises out of a state of facts, but once common-law status exists, it, like any other marriage, may be terminated only by death or court decree, and the spouses’ subsequent denials of the marriage, if disbelieved do not undo the marriage. Thus, common-law marriage can be terminated only by death, formal divorce, or a formal annulment.

So, as you can see, while common-law marriage is fairly simple to enter into, it is not so simple that you would find yourself married without your knowledge. Likewise, it is not so simple that it doesn’t require a formal divorce proceeding, such as the one in which Chuck Knoblauch currently find himself. Unlike how the newscaster couched it, such a proceeding is not just an overly cautious move by the Knoblauchs, it is a legal requirement for the dissolution of such a marriage.

Hopefully this will serve to clear up some of the confusion regarding common-law marriage. This might also be a good time to point out that bigamy is a crime in Texas, so if upon reading this you realize that you were at one time common-law married to someone that is not your current spouse, you might want to place a call to a friendly divorce attorney. Or just give us a call, we’ll point you in the right direction.

Mediation in a Contested Guardianship

August 17, 2009

Mediation is an informal process that allows the parties in a lawsuit to negotiate a resolution without the necessity for having a judge or a jury determine the outcome of the case. In its most basic form, mediation can be described as a “negotiation facilitated by a third-party.”

In the typical situation, a neutral third-party mediator will sit down with the parties and their attorneys, either in the same room or in separate rooms, and attempt to bring the parties to a voluntary resolution of their lawsuit before a Court is required to determine the outcome against the interests of at least one of those parties.

Many people often prefer mediation because the process is private, voluntary, and informal. Accordingly, a mediation can be crafted to address as few or as many issues as are prompting the continued litigation, and everything said and done within the mediation is completely confidential and cannot be shared with anyone outside the mediation. As a result, mediation allows the mediator and the parties to collaborate to develop a workable resolution to the lawsuit, rather than each party running the risk of losing at trial.

In a litigated guardianship case, the parties may have more than one goal in the lawsuit: protecting a loved one’s assets, protecting the loved one’s health and well-being, keeping other family members from unreasonably restricting access to the loved one, ensuring better living conditions for the loved one, etc. Because of the extremely contentious nature of many litigated guardianship cases, the Texas Probate Code allows Courts to disqualify all of the parties from serving as the guardian, which means that a trial of the case could ultimately result in all of the parties losing at trial by having the Court appoint an outside party as guardian.

Inasmuch as contested guardianships can involve a wide litany of issues which may not be simply “dollars and cents,” a guardianship mediation has to focus on addressing not only the legal issues of protecting estate assets, choosing a guardian or decision-maker, etc., but the guardianship mediation must also attempt to allay the underlying family conflict that may be driving the litigation. Although a Court will focus only on the legal issues, a mediation of a contested guardianship can address the entire gambit of issues which may be causing strife between the parties. Likewise, the guardianship mediation allows the parties to choose the outcome for their loved one, rather than running the risk that the Court might appoint an outside, unrelated party to be placed in charge of making decisions for your loved one.

Ford & Mathiason LLP offers Mediation Services specifically in the area of contested guardianship cases. For more information about these services, please refer to the Mediation Services page of our website.

Dying Without a Will in Texas: What Happens?

July 29, 2009

Part 3
By Jason Brower

Question: “Is it true that the state gets everything if I die without a Will?”

The final scenario is where a person dies without a spouse and without children. This is the most complex scenario with five possible divisions, which are better explained in the following bullet points:

1. If both parents survive the decedent, then his estate passes to his father and mother, in equal portions.

2. If only one parent survives the deceased, then his estate will be divided into two equal portions, one of which will pass to the surviving parent, and the other passes to the siblings of the deceased.

3. However, if the decedent had no siblings, then all of the separate property would pass to the sole surviving parent.

4. Conversely, if neither parent is alive, but there are surviving siblings, then the whole estate passes to the siblings of the deceased.

5. Finally, if there is no parent nor sibling alive at the time of death of the decedent, the inheritance is divided into two equal parts. One part is passed to the paternal kindred, and the other is passed to the maternal kindred, in the following course:

• to the grandfather and grandmother in equal portions if both are living.

• If only one grandparent is living then the estate is split into two equal parts and one part goes to the surviving grandparent and the other goes to the descendant or descendants of such deceased grandparent.

• If there is no surviving grandparent, then the whole of the estate goes to their descendants, and so on without end, passing in like manner to the nearest lineal ancestors and their descendants, but never to the state.

Like the provisions related to the division of separate property, the Probate Code also lays out the division of the community property of someone who dies intestate. Fortunately, the distribution scheme for community property is easier because community property, by definition, only exists if a spouse survives the decedent. Only three scenarios exist when someone dies intestate leaving community property: 1) no children or descendants, 2) children who are all children of the decedent and the surviving spouse, and 3) children or descendants who are not all descendants of the surviving spouse.
1. If the deceased had no children, then the entire community estate passes to the surviving spouse.

2. If the deceased had children, and all of such children were also the children of the surviving spouse, then the entire community estate passes to the surviving spouse.

3. And finally, if the deceased had children or descendants other than those of the surviving spouse, then the surviving spouse retains her one-half (½) share of the community property, and the decedent’s one-half (½) share of the community property is divided equally between the children or descendants of the deceased.

So, as you can see, Texas law makes it very clear that the court will find an heir and that heir will inherit your estate and your estate will not be turned over to the state for any reason. However, to ensure that your estate is divided the way you see fit, and to avoid a costly administration, it is always the best bet to ensure that you have a valid Texas Will.

Dying Without a Will in Texas: What Happens?

July 15, 2009

Part 2
By Jason Brower

Question: “Is it true that the state gets everything if I die without a Will?”

Four basic scenarios illustrate the division of separate property upon someone’s death. In the first and most common scenario, a person dies with a spouse and children. In such case, the surviving spouse takes one-third of the personal property, (non land assets) and the remaining two-thirds of the personal property is divided equally among the child or children of the deceased. The surviving spouse of the decedent is also entitled to possession for life, of one-third of the land of the deceased, with that one-third going to the children or descendants upon that surviving spouses death.

In the second common scenario, someone dies without a spouse but is survived by each of the children born to him or her during life. In that scenario, all of the property is divided equally between the children. This scenario results in the easiest division of the decedent’s property.

In the third scenario, someone dies leaving a surviving spouse but does not leave any children or descendants. There, the spouse is entitled to all of the personal property and to one-half of the land of the Estate. The other half of the land would go to the father and mother of the deceased in equal portions. If only one parent survived the deceased, then that share of the land would be divided into two equal portions, one passing to the surviving parent, and the other passing to the siblings of the deceased. If there were no siblings, the entire share would pass to the parent. If no parent survived the deceased, and there were siblings, the entire share would pass to the siblings.

In the next installment, we will discuss the most complex scenario, what happens when a person dies without a spouse and without children.

Dying Without a Will in Texas: What Happens? Part I

June 29, 2009

Part 1
By Jason Brower

Question: “Is it true that the state gets everything if I die without a Will?”

Concerned clients routinely ask this question expressing their concern in keeping the State from taking their hard-earned estate upon their deaths. Fortunately, the State does not take the property of someone dying without a Will. Instead, Texas law dictates how the assets of someone dying without a Will are divided upon their death.

If you die without a Will, you are said to have died “intestate.” When someone dies intestate, Texas law lays out how the estate will be distributed in the Texas Probate Code. Under those provisions, the law draws a distinction between “separate” property and “community” property. The Probate Code defines separate property as any property owned by the deceased prior to married and any property given to the deceased during their marriage or acquired by them as an inheritance from someone else. On the other hand, the Probate Code defines community property as all property acquired or accumulated during the marriage, other than property acquired by gift or inheritance, and Texas law requires different divisions of separate property than community property. These divisions can be somewhat complicated, but understanding their divisions makes intestate estates much easier.

In the next several days we will analyze these scenarios and explain the probate code’s division of property for each scenario.

Some Estate Tax Basics

May 26, 2009

As we tread toward the summer of 2009, many former and new clients are cropping up to either revisit their existing estate plans or sit down to prepare plans for the first time. Ford & Mathiason’s estate planning clients generally fall into one of two categories, and the total value of the estate is usually the variable that determines what type of plan is appropriate. For estates (combined for married couples) valued at less than $1 million, our attorneys will usually only be engaged to prepare or revise simple plans using routine Wills, Medical Powers of Attorney, Statutory Durable Powers of Attorney and Directives to Physicians. For those clients whose total estates exceed this mark, we will often discuss some of the more complex planning techniques to account for the possibility that the Federal Estate Tax may rear its head in the future.

The Federal Estate Tax, often appropriately referred to as the “Death Tax,” is, in general terms, a tax imposed on the transfer of wealth by virtue of an individual’s death. Yes, there are two unavoidable things in this world, and Uncle Sam makes sure you don’t forget that he is one of them. Sam also takes a pretty big bite for the unwary taxpayer, and though there are certain exemptions and deductions, the effective tax can act to cut a Decedent’s Estate in half before the remainder is ever distributed to the beneficiaries under a Will, or to the Decedent’s heirs in the absence of a Will. With that consequence in mind, many clients want to make sure that they understand at least the basics of a tax that could have a very large impact on their families and loved ones.

In order to determine if the tax might apply, planners first look to the “gross estate” of the Decedent. I often explain to my clients that the Federal government casts its net as wide as possible in order to determine a base to tax from. Start with everything that the Decedent owns at his or her death, including all of the separate property and the one-half of any community property. This is where most clients stop the analysis, but your government goes further than most think. For example, certain property transferred by the Decedent within 3 years of death may be included. Property the Decedent transferred but retained a life estate in may be included. Even assets that most people understand to be “non-probate,” such as life insurance, retirement accounts and annuities, may be included in the “gross estate” that forms the starting point of any estate tax analysis.

With the “gross estate” tallied, the focus shifts to available deductions, and this is where some of the most basic tax-planning strategies come into play. An individual’s “gross estate” can be whittled down by several things, including funeral expenses, expenses of estate administration, property passing to certain charities and property passing to a surviving spouse, just to name a few. When the tentative tax is calculated, certain credits are applied. The credit with the greatest impact is the “unified credit.” This is the dollar amount clients often know the most about, since it has received a fair amount of press coverage over the last several years. In a nutshell, the “unified credit” results in an exemption or “applicable exclusion,” which serves as the threshold to determine whether or not any tax is owed. For the last three years, Estates of less than $2 million owed no tax. For 2009, this number increased to $3.5 million, and has the ultimate effect of removing many Estates from taxation – at least for the next few months.

If uncertainty worries you, plunk your head in the sand now. If, on the other hand, debate and uncertainty intrigue or energize you, stay tuned. Both are brewing on Capitol Hill with regard to the estate tax. A little more than a month ago, the United States Senate voted 51-48 to permanently cut the tax rate to 35% and exempt all estates of less than $10 million per couple ($5 million for a single taxpayer). The concept means that fewer estates would pay the tax, and the hope is that families would reinvest the untaxed inheritance, thereby spurring economic growth. Earning traction for this idea should prove challenging and at least politically entertaining, since our country finds herself in the midst of economic turmoil, budget nightmares and tepid bipartisanship at every turn.

The last chapters on the Estate tax simply have yet to be written, which makes thoughtful and educated estate planning an absolute necessity. By its nature, estate planning involves planning ahead for unknown circumstances. Pending legislation adds another variable, and if your current estate plan is less than prepared, you might do well to learn a bit more. As lawmakers begin to polish their talking points, we should all perk up and pay attention to the issue.

Challenging Challenges, Pt. 2

February 24, 2009

In a previous post, I began discussing some of the fact and evidence challenges in Will contests from the challenger’s perspective. Recall that I boiled down will contests to three basic varieties of complaints: (1) complaints about the technical execution of the document, (2) complaints about the conduct of the person making the Will, and (3) complaints about the conduct of some third-party. Last time, I outlined some of the traditional fact scenarios in a contest of the first type. This time, let’s focus on challenges to Wills based on the conduct of the person signing it.

The way I see it, there are three important time periods to focus on in challenges involving the person signing the Will, also known as the Testator. If I’m asking my contestant client the right questions, I want to learn more about (1) what the Testator did before the Will was signed, (2) what was happening at the time the Will was signed, and (3) what happened after the Will was signed. Sometimes, a client can provide information about all three time periods – sometimes not. As a general rule, I would like to know as much as possible about all three, so that we can begin to look for inconsistencies, different behaviors, different attitudes and perhaps even different mental conditions of the Testator during each of these periods.

Of the potential grounds on which a challenge to a Will can be brought, there are probably only four that are attributable to some conduct of the Testator. Obviously, each comes with their own issues of evidence and proof. Perhaps the Testator lacked the mental capacity to execute a Will at the time that the challenged document was signed. Or, maybe the document itself fails to demonstrate an actual testamentary intent on the part of the Testator. Maybe the Testator was mistaken about what the Will actually said. Or, perhaps the Testator did something after signing the document to demonstrate that she intended to revoke it.

A Will is generally defined as an instrument by which a person makes a disposition of her property to take effect at his death. This little definition actually leads to a couple of pretty important conclusions. First, no Will is irrevocable until the Testator dies. The disposition of property takes effect at death, and until that time, a Testator can change her mind and revoke the instrument. This revocation might come in the form of executing a new document, or it may come as a physical act, such as tearing the document up, or tossing it in the trash.

Second, the document must actually make a disposition of property. A fair number of Texas cases have dealt with issues regarding the wording in challenged documents. A document entitled “Last Will and Testament,” which states “upon my death I leave all of my property to my husband,” is pretty clearly a Will. But a document that looks toward the preparation of some other document, like a letter of instruction to a lawyer, may not meet the definition. “Dear Lawyer, please change my Will to leave my property to my sister,” is not language that by its own terms gives anything away. The letter looks to have the lawyer prepare a document to be signed later, and so the letter likely cannot be admitted as the Testator’s Will.

By far, however, the vast majority of Will contests that I encounter dealing with the conduct of the Testator are those that touch on the issue of the Testator’s mental capacity at the time the Will was signed. “Mom must not have known what she was signing if she didn’t leave anything to me. She had Alzheimer’s, was on medication and barely even recognized friends and family at that point.”

Testamentary capacity refers directly to the mental condition of the Testator at the time that a Will is executed. In short, the Testator must have sufficient mental capacity to engage in the act of executing a Will in order for the Will to be valid. The bar for testamentary capacity is actually pretty low, but there are some basic elements that must be met. For example, the Testator must be able to understand what a Will does, be able to know their property and be able to understand who might reasonably expect to receive it upon their death.

I find challenges to Wills on a theory of inadequate capacity pretty commonplace. After all, a fair number of Wills are often executed at a time when the Testator thinks that death might be just around the corner. Often, these times are accompanied by illnesses and conditions that affect our capacity, such as dementia, senility and Alzheimer’s Disease.

Though common, Will contests based upon a lack of testamentary capacity are sometimes incredibly difficult. In most circumstances where the Will is drafted by an attorney, the document is executed in the presence of two witnesses, a notary public and maybe others. These are people who probably observed, heard and spoke to the Testator at the very moment that she was signing the Will. These witnesses will undoubtedly form the cornerstone of the opposing party’s case, and their testimony is usually going to be pretty compelling. Who better to tell us how the Testator was behaving at the time of the execution than honest strangers who saw, heard and spoke to her?

But the issue might not end with the recollection of these witnesses. After all, if other evidence shows that the Testator lacked capacity before and after the execution, should we not reasonably believe that she lacked capacity during the execution as well? Is it really that likely that the Testator had a brief moment of clarity and senility at that exact point in time? Maybe, maybe not.

More often than not, potential contestants want to bring in their own stories of how the Testator lacked capacity. That’s fine, and they may even help prove the case. But I’m far more interested in evidence that is more difficult to call into question, and that usually means that I’m looking for something medical. Show me a physician who diagnosed the Testator with severe dementia, or a doctor who prescribed heavy medication only days before the Will was signed. Even if we have to overcome the testimony of witnesses who were there when the Will was signed, I give myself much better odds when I have more than a contestant’s sneaking suspicion that something must have been off.

Challenging Challenges

February 3, 2009

With tax season looming over everyone’s heads, perhaps we could use a distraction and turn our attention to the other inevitability that Benjamin Franklin mentioned more than 200 years ago – death. But let’s not be morbid about it and dwell on our own mortality. Instead, I thought it might be more fitting to talk about how even the best laid plans for our personal reckoning can be questioned and challenged by our friends, families and loved ones.

More often than not, professional service providers stress to their clients the importance of everyone having a Will. I’m guilty. I chant it like a mantra myself as I congratulate the folks that have them and scramble to help the ones that don’t. While having a Will is imperative, I should probably tell my clients to have a “good” Will, and by that I mean one that would withstand a challenge or contest.

The majority of my clients laugh at the idea of a fight over their Estate. Either their Estate is modest in their opinion, or their families would never engage in such behavior. I generally counter by explaining that my experience has taught me that no estate is too modest, and that even the most loving families can become entangled in the most brutal Will contests. All it takes is a coveted family heirloom, scorned loved ones and hurt feelings to lay the foundation for litigation that often saps the emotional and financial resources of everyone involved.

I plan to discuss some useful tools to deter and avoid these fights in subsequent posts. For now, I thought we might look at the issue from a different perspective – the person contesting the Will. Sometimes a contest has potential for success, and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes, a client knows something is amiss, but can’t quite put his finger on it. On what grounds can a Will be challenged? Stop me if you’ve heard this one: “Mama loved me best of all, and there’s no way she meant to leave her Estate to my good-for-nothing brother. Either she didn’t know what she was signing, or my brother made her do it. How do I stop my brother from probating this bogus Will?” The question is similar to the ones I hear from clients all the time.

Will contests generally fall into three broad categories of complaints: (1) A complaint about the technical execution of the document, (2) A complaint about the conduct of the person making the Will, or (3) A complaint about the conduct of some third-party. Set 2 and 3 aside for now. We’ll get back to them. This post will look a bit more in detail about Will contests involving a challenge based generally upon the execution of the document.

A Will is generally defined as an instrument by which a person makes a disposition of his property to take effect at his death, and which, by its nature, is subject to being revoked while the person is still living. Estate of Brown, 507 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. Civ. App. – Dallas, 1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Section 59 of the Texas Probate Code outlines the requisites of a Will in Texas, and it is one of the most liberal Will execution statutes in the country. To be a Will, the document must be in writing and signed by the Testator (the person making the Will.) Nothing fancy is required, and apart from the requirement that the Will must demonstrate an intention to dispose of property at death, a Will could be short and to the point.

If the Will isn’t written entirely by the Testator in his own handwriting, it must be attested to by two credible witnesses above the age of 14. Section 59 goes on to state that the Will may be made “self-proved” at any time after its execution. Often, a will is made self-proven at the same time the Testator signs it. An affidavit acknowledging certain facts regarding the execution of the Will is signed by the Testator, the witnesses and a Notary Public. The presence of a proper Self-Proving Affidavit relieves the person offering the Will of the burden of bringing one or both of the witnesses to Court to provide testimony. Thus, a Self-Proving Affidavit works as advance testimony – confirming for the Court that the Will was properly executed.

When a challenged Will is typewritten, signed by the Testator, signed by two witnesses and includes a Self-Proving Affidavit, the grounds for a complaint regarding the Will’s form and execution become somewhat limited. Many would-be contestants fail to realize that these bare facts already identify at least three witnesses who are likely to provide evidence in favor of the Will. Two witnesses and a Notary Public were presumably in the Testator’s presence when he signed the Will. In fact, they’ve already provided testimony on this, since that is the effect of the Self-Proving Affidavit. Right off the bat, our potential contestant has an uphill fight. Beyond that, since the Will was typed, it was likely prepared by an attorney and executed in her office. Add another witness to the list, since the attorney probably consulted with the Testator before signing the Will, and may even have been in the room when it was signed. Before any other facts are introduced, I already know my contestant is going to need to muster some serious evidence to prevail.

To be frank, I don’t encounter many Will contests where the basis for the fight is the technical form or execution of the document. Most of the Wills that I see are drafted well enough to suffice, properly witnessed and made self-proven. More often, Will contests fall into the other two categories that I plan to discuss later. Certainly, this isn’t always the case, and unique facts and circumstances will always exist. My point is that contestants will frequently look past the fact that their opponent often already has a handful of witnesses on their side. For those contestants that can’t quite put their finger on why the Will should be denied probate, explaining this is a lot like shutting a door in their face. All hope may not be lost, however, as there are a number of other potential bases for a Will contest. We’ll pick up with those next time.

Hecht of a Deal

December 8, 2008

In a move that proves even those who sit upon the highest court in our state are not “above” the law, the Texas Ethics Commission on Thursday fined Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht $29,000 for accepting illegal political contributions.

In 2006, Justice Hecht received a discount for personal legal services performed by the firm of Jackson Walker. The representation involved a dispute with the Judicial Conduct Commission. The firm’s invoice for such matter totaled more than $400,000.00. However, Justice Hecht only reported paying the firm $342,000.00. The Justice and his legal team claimed the discrepancy was pro bono time given to the Justice because of the “important” First Amendment issues involved in the matter.

In July of 2007, Texas Watch, an organization dedicated to defending our civil justice system against the growing corporate immunity agenda being pushed by a handful of powerful special interests, filed a complaint against Justice Hecht regarding the discount, which was in excess of the judicial limits and not reported by Justice Hecht.

After nearly an hour of deliberation, the commission determined that there was “credible evidence” of an Election Code violation and announced the fine.

Hecht is reportedly disappointed and will consider appealing the commission’s administrative penalty to state district court.

It’s probably safe to assume that he will pay his own legal fees this time.

Contact Ford & Mathiason LLP today for all your Probate Trial and Appellate needs.

Judge Austin Called To Serve Higher Court

June 24, 2008

The Honorable Judge Russell Austin died Monday afternoon from complications following a massive stroke he suffered over the weekend.

Judge Austin presided over Probate Court Number One in Harris County, Texas. He rose to the bench in 1995 following 25 years of practicing Real Estate and Probate law in the Houston area.

Judge Austin also served as an adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law teaching Wills, Trust, and Estates.

Judge Austin received his BA from the University of Houston in 1968. He received his JD from the University of Houston in 1971. He became Board Certified in Real Estate Law in 1984.

Throughout his Judicial career he received many awards and honors, including Judge of the Year Award in 2006; Professor Excellence Awards in 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001; Public Service Award in 2005, and a Special Faculty Contribution Award in 1990.

He was a highly respected member of the bar, an outstanding Judge, and a dear friend to all.

He will be greatly missed.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.