Case Update -- Jarvis v. Feild

Jarvis v. Feild, 327 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2010, no pet. h.).

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION -- Venue

Litigant objected to the court’s venue to probate a will.  Because Litigant did not object until Litigant appealed the admission of the will to probate, the court held that she waived her venue argument.

Moral:  Objections to venue should be timely filed or else they will be deemed waived.

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION -- Inventory

Litigant appealed asserting that an approved inventory was incomplete and misstated the value of the listed property.  However, her appeal did not specifically indicate she was appealing the inventory order but rather objected to the approval of the account for final settlement which the court issued many months later.  Litigant argued that the two orders were linked so the appeal of the account for final settlement automatically appealed the approval of the inventory.  Although there was no support for Litigant’s argument, the court decided to review the inventory approval because appellate issues should be liberally construed so the right to appeal is not lost.  After examining the evidence, the court determined that the trial court did not err in approving the inventory.

Moral:  A person dissatisfied with the court’s approval of an inventory should take action in a timely manner and clearly indicate the court order to which the person is objecting.

For summaries of other recent Texas cases, please follow this link: http://www.professorbeyer.com/Case_Summaries/Texas_Case_Summaries.htm. 

Gerry W. Beyer
Governor Preston E. Smith Regents Professor of Law
Texas Tech University School of Law
1802 Hartford St.
Lubbock, TX 79409-0004
voice (806) 742-3990, ext. 302
fax (978) 285-7941
e-mail gwb@professorbeyer.com
web http://www.ProfessorBeyer.com
blog http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/trusts_estates_prof/
SSRN (articles) http://ssrn.com/author=461383 
Twitter Gerry_Beyer 

Case Update -- In re Guetersloh

In re Guetersloh, 326 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010, no pet. h.).

TRUSTS -- Pro Se

Trustee attempted to represent himself pro se, that is, without an attorney, in both his capacity as a trustee and in his individual capacity.  The appellate court held that Trustee had no right to proceed pro se in his representative (trustee) capacity but could proceed without an attorney with regard to claims in his individual capacity.

The court explained that allowing Trustee to proceed pro se in his representative capacity would be the unauthorized practice of law.  The court stated that “if a non-attorney trustee appears in court on behalf of the trust, he or she necessarily represents the interests of others, which amounts to the unauthorized practice of law.”  The court relied on Steele v. McDonald, 202 S.W.3d 926 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.) in which the court held that a non-lawyer may not appear pro se in the capacity as an estate’s independent executor.

Moral:  A trustee who is not an attorney may not appear in court pro se in the trustee’s representative capacity.

For summaries of other recent Texas cases, please follow this link:http://www.professorbeyer.com/Case_Summaries/Texas_Case_Summaries.htm.

Gerry W. Beyer
Governor Preston E. Smith Regents Professor of Law
Texas Tech University School of Law
1802 Hartford St.
Lubbock, TX 79409-0004
voice (806) 742-3990, ext. 302
fax (978) 285-7941
e-mail gwb@professorbeyer.com
web http://www.ProfessorBeyer.com
blog http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/trusts_estates_prof/
SSRN (articles) http://ssrn.com/author=461383 
Twitter Gerry_Beyer

Case Update -- In re Hudson

In re Hudson, 325 S.W.3d 811 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet. h.).

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION -- Appeal -- Admitting Will to Probate and Granting Independent Administration

Will Contestant requested a jury trial.  However, the trial court heard the application without a jury and over Contestant’s objection.  The court then admitted the testator’s will to probate and issued an order granting independent administration.  Contestant then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus.

The appellate court denied the petition because Contestant has an adequate remedy on appeal.  The court held that an order admitting a will to probate and granting an independent administration was a final order and thus appealable.

Moral:  An order admitting a will to probate and granting independent administration is a final order which a dissatisfied person may appeal.

For summaries of other recent Texas cases, please follow this link: http://www.professorbeyer.com/Case_Summaries/Texas_Case_Summaries.htm.

Gerry W. Beyer
Governor Preston E. Smith Regents Professor of Law
Texas Tech University School of Law
1802 Hartford St.
Lubbock, TX 79409-0004
voice (806) 742-3990, ext. 302
fax (978) 285-7941
e-mail gwb@professorbeyer.com
web http://www.ProfessorBeyer.com
blog http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/trusts_estates_prof/
SSRN (articles) http://ssrn.com/author=461383 
Twitter Gerry_Beyer