Before you even consider the probate of an estate, there are several preliminary matters that have to be attended to immediately after a loved on dies. These are the pressing matters that have to be attended to or considered immediately after death. Determination of Death The first step after someone dies involves contacting the authorities […]
The post What Do You Do with the Body After a Loved One Dies? appeared first on El Paso Probate Attorneys, Kreig LLC.
Terminology Service of Citation: legal notice of the filing of the case to the opposing party. Restricted Appeal: an appeal of specific aspects of a judgment rather than the judgment in its entirety. Rule 21 & Rule 21(a), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: states that any amended pleading must be served on an answering party. […]
The post Rebutting the Presumption of Revocation of a Missing Will appeared first on El Paso Probate Attorneys, Kreig LLC.
The term “final judgment” is often used in probate cases, but does it mean the same thing as a final judgment in other cases? In other words, when is the decision able to be appealed? In this article, we’ll take a look at when a judgment is considered final in a probate case and what […]
The post When Is a Judgment Considered “Final” in a Probate Case? appeared first on El Paso Probate Attorneys, Kreig LLC.
Texas law makes it clear that identifying probate property is a duty. It has to be done and the personal representative has to do it. But there are no set rules for how to identify property that the decedent owned or had an interest in. At a minimum, one must review the financial records that […]
The post What’s the Difference Between Probate & Non-Probate Property? appeared first on El Paso Probate Attorneys, Kreig LLC.
Introduction When a promissory note is lost or destroyed, it could be an immediate disaster for the person to whom the note is owed. That person can file a suit in order to recover on the claim and, if he or she is successful, recover from the owner of the promissory note. Probate Case Geiselman […]
The post Claiming Lost or Destroyed Promissory Notes In Texas appeared first on El Paso Probate Attorneys, Kreig LLC.
If you have a claim against the estate of a deceased person—for example, for unpaid wages or breach of contract or other claim against the estate—you may be wondering what to do. The process for making a claim against an estate depends on whether the estate is being administered through probate or not. The case of Dunn v. Sublett gives us some insight into one aspect of this situation.
Consisting of three parts.
Debts that are pending (not yet matured), rather than debts dependent on a scenario which will never occur.
Dunn v. Sublett, 539 S.W.2d 351 (Tex. 1976)
Michael C. Dunn (Plaintiff), heir to John R. Dunn, deceased, brought forth a claim against the estate of Philip A. Sublett, deceased, which was subsequently rejected by F.B. Sublett (Defendant). Plaintiff’s claim against the estate focused on a tripartite contract between John R. Dunn, Philip Sublett, and Sam Houston. Under this contract, Sublett and Houston sold ownership of land specified within the contract to Dunn, and Dunn advanced a sum of money to them that was required to be reimbursed.
The Supreme Court held that, (1) since the rejection of the claim by the administrator was not based on the lack of authentication by the person providing the affidavit and (2) the statute did not specify who could provide the affidavit, the judgment dismissing the claim must be reversed and remanded.
The Court stated that the claim for money presented by Plaintiff was one that should be presented before the administrator, and that its allowance would simply ensure that the claim had the status that the administrator and chief justice would have given it through its approval (including the general and special liabilities on the estate as allowed by law). An affidavit must be provided with a claim, but the statute does not specify who must provide it, and as such is not conclusive or binding on the administrator. The administrator may reject a claim brought forth by a person lacking competent authority, a proper affidavit, and awareness of the facts, but must state that rationale. If the administrator generally rejects the claim, it will be presumed to be due to the merits of the claim and not for a lack of authentication (unless the claim fails to provide items required by law).
Every claim for money against a testator or intestate needs to be presented to the administrator, regardless of whether the money is currently or not currently due. Debts owed to the United States maintain priority over other debts owed by a deceased person despite the timeline in which debts are required to be paid (whether presently or in the future).
Where a claim against an estate is validated by a person who is neither the owner or the agent of the owner, an administrator that chooses to reject the claim must specifically state why prior to being sued for the establishment of such a claim.
If you have been named the executor of an estate in El Paso, you may be wondering if you need to hire a probate attorney. The answer is: it depends. The probate process can be complex, and if the estate is large or there are potential disputes among the heirs, or the payment of a claim, it may be wise to seek legal help. An experienced probate attorney can help you navigate the process, from filing the necessary paperwork to distributing the assets. If the estate is small and there are no disagreements among the heirs, you may be able to handle the probate process on your own. However, even in these cases, it is always a good idea to consult with an attorney to make sure you are taking the right steps.
If you are unsure whether or not you need to hire a probate attorney, please contact us for a free consultation at (915) 292-4400, or use the calendar to the right (—>). We can help you understand the process and decide if hiring an attorney is right for you.
In order to make a claim on an estate, you will need to provide the following information: the decedent’s full name, date of death, your relationship to the decedent, and your contact information. You will also need to provide a copy of the death certificate. If you are the executor of the estate or administrator of the estate, you will need to provide a copy of the will.
If you’re an heir or a beneficiary of a will, you may be eligible for unclaimed funds if the deceased person has died and it’s been two years since their death. You can claim these funds by filing a claim with the state where the deceased person has passed away. Be sure to check if the property is actually unclaimed before doing so. There are many different types of unclaimed property, so it’s important to know what you’re looking for. Common types of unclaimed property include bank accounts, stocks, bonds, and life insurance policies. If you think you may be entitled to any of this type of property of the estate, reach out to the state in which the deceased person resided and file a claim.
When a claim is filed against an estate, the executor of the estate is responsible for handling the claim. The executor will review the claim and determine if it is valid. If the claim is valid, the executor will pay the claim. If the claim is not valid, the executor will deny the claim.
Generally, an estate includes all real and personal property owned by an individual at the time of their death. However, there are certain types of property that may not be included in the estate, such as jointly owned property, life insurance policies, and retirement accounts.
The post Claims Against a Deceased Person’s Estate appeared first on El Paso Probate Attorneys, Kreig LLC.
A non obstante veredicto (JNOV) means a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It is a judgment made during litigation that goes against what the jury decides. It happens when a jury decides in favor of one party and the judge sets that verdict aside and decides a ruling in favor of the other party. For example, in a probate proceeding if the jury rules in favor of the person bringing charges (plaintiff), a non obstante veredicto would occur if the judge ignored the jury’s ruling and found in favor of the person the charges were being brought against (defendant). A non obstante veredicto can only under a certain circumstance. What is that circumstance and how is it applicable? Estate of Querner answers these questions.
Estate of Querner, 974 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, no writ)
Thera Querner and her brother Jimmie L. Querner Jr. each owned an undivided 50 percent interest in a 900-acre ranch in Kerr and Gillespie counties which they inherited from their father. The pair sought partition of the ranch meaning they wished to have the property divided between the two of them in accordance with each of their 50 percent interest. Three commissioners oversaw dividing the land equally. Because Thera lived on a house on the ranch her property was more valuable and therefore, the commissioners also oversaw proper allowances to be made to Jimmie for any differences in quality and features of the two parcels of land.
When the land was divided, it was appraised to be worth $1,100 an acre, and 475 acres were given to Jimmie while 425 acres were given to Thera. Thera’s land was valued at $25,000, and Jimmie’s land was valued at $30,000 with adjustments for allowances and taking into consideration that his land had access to the roads through an easement (via use of his sister’s land). Thera disliked these results and filed objections in court. During the trial, the jury was asked if the land had been divided in a fair, just and impartial manner. They answered no. Jimmie then made a motion for JNOV which the court granted. Thera appealed saying the court erred in granting this motion. On appeal, the motion for JNOV was reversed as the court of appeals found the trial court had erred in granting it to overturn the jury trial.
A judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV) can only occur if there is no evidence to support the decision of the jury. In other words, if jurors have come to a conclusion that cannot be supported by any evidence, the judge may rule against the jury’s verdict. This means that when a party requests for an N.O.V., the reviewing court must decide if there is any evidence for which the jury could have based their ruling off. The review is done with a favorable light to the verdict of the jurors. This means that the reviewing court need only find a scintilla of competent evidence to support the findings in a jury trial. In other words, the reviewing court only needs to find a very small amount of evidence that could support the jury’s original verdict as a matter of law.
Here, it was found that Thera produced enough competent evidence to appeal the JNOV. The testimonies at the trial found that whatever improvements Thera made to her portion of land were too small of magnitude and of such fair/poor condition that the value of them was included in the value of the land. In other words, Thera’s improvements to the land were not large enough to add value to her portion of the land. The commissioners had also testified that the fact that Jimmie is further from the roads and must cross his sister’s land to access them does not add value to his land, and it is actually a detriment to his land’s value. Because the court of appeals was able to find this evidence, they ruled that the trial court made a mistake when they granted Jimmie’s JNOV and overturned the juror’s decision.
Have you lost a loved one and have no idea how to proceed? Our local Texas attorneys can help you through the probate process. A good probate attorney will guide you through every step of the process from beginning to end. Hire an experienced probate lawyer in the El Paso metro area or in the surrounding communities. Contact us on our homepage, and don’t forget to ask about our Free 30-minute probate attorney consultation. You can schedule your free consultation using the calendar on the right ->. From first steps to final distribution, we handle the entire probate process for you.
Judges are permitted to overrule the verdict of a jury if it goes against Texas probate law or if it would be considered unjust. And yes, this does happen, but whether you’re a plaintiff or defendant, don’t count on it as part of your litigation strategy.
There are certain circumstances in which a judge can overrule a jury verdict. As previously mentioned, this happens when the verdict goes against Texas probate law or is considered unjust by the court. In most cases, defendants in probate proceedings believe they have been wrongfully accused by the plaintiff and will attempt to appeal their case; however, there are instances in which plaintiff’s believe they have been wrongfully accused and appeal their case as well.
Is it possible for a judge to overrule a jury’s decision in a criminal case and send the defendant to prison anyway? It can happen, but it’s rare. Let’s say the jury in a criminal case has listened to the evidence, heard witnesses and arguments from both sides, and makes its judgment. It returns a not guilty verdict. A judge can then decide that the trial is not over. If a judge dismisses the jury, he or she can hold a hearing and decide that a defendant is guilty after all.
There are a number of reasons why a judge might choose to do this. In some cases, the judge may feel that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support the jury’s verdict. In other cases, the judge may believe that the jury did not correctly apply the law when reaching their decision.
Whatever the reason, if a judge does choose to overrule a jury’s acquittal, the defendant will usually have an opportunity to appeal the decision. This means that they can take their case to a higher court where it will be reviewed by a panel of judges. If they are still found guilty by this higher court, then they will likely be required to serve their sentence. But again, don’t rely on this as a defense strategy.
In a criminal case, if the jury is unable to agree on a verdict and a deadlock is reached, the judge would declare it a mistrial. When a jury deadlocks, or is unable to come to a decision on a verdict, the judge presiding over the case declares a mistrial. This means that the trial is ended and no verdict is reached. The jury’s inability to come to a decision does not necessarily mean that they believe the defendant is innocent, but rather that they are unable to agree beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. If the prosecution and defense are both unsatisfied with the outcome of a mistrial, they may choose to retry the case.
Trial outcomes are the ultimate decision from a jury or a judge, who hears the facts of a case. This can be a financial award, an order, or a denial. While trial outcomes are sometimes thought of as final decisions, they often prompt an appeal.
The post Can a Probate Judge Overturn a Jury Verdict? appeared first on El Paso Probate Attorneys, Kreig LLC.
The Texas probate process works best when the will is available for review. If a will can’t be found, for example, because it was destroyed in a fire or accident, or a dead person’s family can’t find it, the process is a lot more complicated. But can a will be admitted to probate even if the original will is lost? This case answers that question.
Cy pres Doctrine: allows courts to amend a legal document so that it may be enforced despite situations where it becomes impossible or impractical to do so otherwise.
Motion for Summary Judgment: may be granted by a court if the movant (party seeking to obtain it) shows there is no material fact dispute, and that the movant is legally entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Howard Hughes Medical Institute v. Neff, 640 S.W.2d 942 (Tex.App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, writ ref’d n.r.e.)
Howard Robert Hughes passed away on April 5, 1976, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Appellant) filed an application for probate for Mr. Hughes’s will in Nevada district court. In the application, Appellant listed itself as either 1) the principal beneficiary of a lost will dated sometime between 1953 to 1963, or 2) the intended beneficiary or beneficiary of a lost original will dated/executed on May 30, 1925 (using the cy pres doctrine). The Nevada court entered into summary judgment, which was averse to Appellant. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed its ruling. While the Nevada case was pending, Appellant appeared in Texas probate court but did not apply for probate. The Texas probate court granted the heirs of Hughes motion for summary judgment (invalidating Appellant’s beneficiary claim). The Texas Court of Appeals reversed, stating that the statute of limitations for Appellant to file an application of a last valid will to probate had not expired.
Both the State of Texas and the court-appointed attorney ad litem for unknown heirs (Appellees) requested a hearing in limine for Appellant to prove its standing as an interested party for the estate. Appellant then filed an application of the will to probate in Texas court. Two motions for summary judgment were filed: one by the executor of an aunt of Hughes (Contestant Neff) and one filed jointly by Hughes’s cousin and the executor of the estate of a cousin of Hughes (Contestants McIntyre and Bond). The Contestants agreed to conduct the hearings regarding standing and summary judgment simultaneously, which were carried out on December 2, 1980. On February 27, 1981, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed Appellant’s probate application.
Appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Texas trial court’s decision after considering the evidence provided by the record. The Court of Appeals held that (1) the letter used as evidence for the 1925 will executed by Mr. Hughes was inadmissible; (2) the evidence used to validate the will was insufficient; (3) the evidence used to show witness participation was insufficient because it only showed search efforts to locate them; (4) fact issues were not present regarding the two alleged wills; (5) & (6) the Appellants lacked substantial proof of the lost will’s contents; (7) the alleged beneficiary of the will lacked interest in the probate of the will; and (8) the doctrine of cy pres was inapplicable because no legal or practical barrier existed in the formation of a medical research corporation, as described in the 1925 alleged will.
Only the trustee of a charitable trust or the Attorney General may initiate a cy pres action, and third parties can only intervene if the named parties do not object.
The letter in question was created in 1925, and the author’s statements did not suggest personal knowledge of an original will signing ceremony that had two witnesses present. Under the ancient documents exception to the hearsay rule, evidence of the truth of facts recited in a document based on the personal knowledge of the declarant/author may be admitted, but conclusory or opinion-based statements must be excluded.
Howard Hughes Medical Institute v. Neff shows that, for an alleged lost original will to be admitted to probate using outside evidence, there must be sufficient documentation of the personal knowledge of a will execution ceremony with credible witnesses present.
Have you lost a loved one and have no idea how to proceed? Our local Texas attorneys can help you through the probate process. A good probate attorney will guide you through every step of the process from beginning to end. Hire an experienced probate lawyer in the El Paso metro area or in the surrounding communities. Contact us on our homepage, and don’t forget to ask about our Free 30-minute probate attorney consultation. You can schedule your free consultation using the calendar on the right ->. From first steps to final distribution, we handle the entire probate process for you.
There are a few things that could happen if you lost your will. First, if you have any assets, such as a home or car, they would go to whomever is listed as the beneficiary in the will. If there is no beneficiary, then the assets would go to your next of kin. Second, any debts that you have would need to be paid off by your estate before anything could be distributed to beneficiaries. This means that if you owe money to anyone, they would need to be compensated out of your estate before anyone else receives anything. Finally, any other instructions that you have laid out in your will need to be carried out. This could include things like who should receive certain items of personal property, or who should care for minor children.
Recently, we’ve heard from a lot of heirs who want to know whether lost wills ever get found. That is, can you find an original will even if the decedent didn’t think to give a copy to a family member or friend?
Most people are aware that wills are sometimes not found after a death has occurred. It’s possible that the deceased just didn’t have time to get their affairs in order before they died.
For example, if someone is incapacitated, or unable to attend to their own affairs due to age or some other reason, they may write a will which they store away somewhere. If they later pass away, it may never be found.
The law provides that property passes by what is called “intestate succession”. This means that if there is no will, then the property is distributed to relatives according to Texas law. This is referred to as “dying intestate.” In some cases, a lost will may be found after the death of the person who wrote it. This can happen if the person who wrote the will gave it to someone else to keep safe, and that person holds onto it after the writer’s death. In other cases, a lost will may be found by accident, such as when going through the deceased person’s belongings.
If a relative of the deceased is looking for the will and can’t find it, they may want to check with any friends or family members who were close to the deceased. It’s also possible that there is no will and the person died intestate. In this case, property would be distributed to relatives according to Texas law.
If you want to know how to avoid probate, we would say that it really depends on your situation.
There are two primary methods of avoiding probate: Owner Directed Disposition of Property and Spousal Disposition.
Owner Directed Disposition is a method in which your property is transferred to another person directly, in trust, by contract, or as beneficiary of a life insurance policy. Spousal Disposition is a method in which property is handled differently depending on how your spouse passes rather than how you pass, who is the executor of your estate, and whether or not there are any children from other relationships or from previous marriages.
Issues surrounding the disposition of property are complicated and are best handled by an attorney who specializes in estate planning.
In Texas, a personal representative can be an administrator (for a deceased person), an executor (for a deceased person who has a will), or a testamentary trustee (for someone who died without a will). No matter which type you are, you have to file for and receive letters of administration or letters of testamentary before the probate process can even start.
If the will can’t be found, the process is a lot more complicated. The court will appoint an administrator to oversee the estate, and the administrator will have to follow certain rules and regulations. The court may also order that all of the dead person’s assets be sold in order to pay off debts and distribute the proceeds according to state law. This can be a lengthy and expensive process, so it’s always best to try to find the will as soon as possible after someone dies.
The post Can a Lost Will Be Admitted to Probate? appeared first on El Paso Probate Attorneys, Kreig LLC.
Even though a probate court is an official court of the State of Texas, it is still limited to hearing only certain matters. If it rules on matters outside of this scope, its ruling might be worthless. Make sure the probate court can hear the matter you’re arguing before it. Here’s a case that illustrates this point:
Coble Wall Trust v. Palmer, 848 SW.2d 696 (Tex. App. 1991)
Probate Proceedings: On April 12, 1985, Coble Wall was appointed by the court to be the guardian of the estate of Booney M. Moore who was an elderly and incompetent person. In November of the same year, an attorney named Cluck filed an Application for Order Authorizing the Establishment of an Estate Plan (An establishment of an estate plan determines how an individual’s assets will be managed, preserved, and distributed after death). The application stated Moore was ninety-three years old, in poor health, and his life expectancy was less than thirty days. The estate plan was approved by the court with changes to the original value of Moore’s assets listed. It also provided that Coble Wall organize a corporation called the Estate of Booney M. Moore, Inc., which would acquire by transfer of property all the real property owned by Moore in exchange for stock and general mortgage bonds. In other words, the corporation would own Moore’s real property, and in return would give stock and bonds. It further provided for several remunerations (money for a service) to be paid to Coble Wall. The purpose of the plan was to provide a cash flow for the estate as well as to reduce the substantial estate and inheritance taxes listed. Coble was also authorized to sell the mortgage bonds to the San Antonio Savings Association (SASA) for $2,400,000.00 cash by subsequent order of the court. This meant that both the purchaser of the estate and the full price of the estate had already been determined as part of the approval of the estate plan.
Moore died in December 1985 and Coble Wall was appointed temporary administrator of the estate. A temporary administrator will be appointed by a judge to serve for a fixed period of time as the person who will manage the estate and ensure it is dealt with in accordance with the rules set in the estate plan. One of the specific powers given to the temporary administrator in the probate court’s order was the power to complete the estate plan previously approved by the probate court in the guardianship proceeding. This meant that Coble Wall was in charge of selling the bonds and stocks to SASA. The probate court authorized the sale of the mortgage bonds to SASA by its order entered December 26, 1985. Coble Wall served with Cluck until removed in March 1986 and thereafter William Palmer was appointed to be the independent administrator of the estate.
Palmer, as permanent administrator, found that Coble Wall and Cluck had mishandled the estate and that the estate plan made by Cluck was not effective in the set purpose of reducing taxes. Palmer alleged the plan was needlessly complex, and that it resulted in the state paying excessive fees. Palmer sued in statutory probate court against the estate’s former temporary administrator (Coble Wall) and its president/sole stockholder (Cluck) alleging negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), including breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentations of estate plan’s characteristics. This issue was tried first against the SASA and then against Coble Wall and Cluck. The court found a verdict in favor of Palmer. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the original verdict of the trial court and held that 1) the probate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the suit, and 2) even if the probate court had jurisdiction, the remaining points of error would not be sustained.
Have you lost a loved one and have no idea how to proceed? Our local Texas attorneys can help you through the probate process. A good probate attorney will guide you through every step of the process from beginning to end. Hire an experienced probate lawyer in the El Paso metro area or in the surrounding communities. Contact us on our homepage, and don’t forget to ask about our Free 30-minute probate attorney consultation. From first steps to final distribution, we handle the entire probate process for you. Schedule your free consultation with the calendar on the right –>
This case shows how if a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to decide a ruling over a case, then any points of contention made by a party are deemed irrelevant and cannot be argued no matter how accurate a court may find them.
Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s ability to hear a particular kind of case. This case was held in a statutory probate court, so it was required to fall into a category of cases that a statutory probate court has the ability to hear. Statutory probate courts may hear cases “appertaining to estates” and “incident to an estate.” The phrase “appertaining to estates” is meant to limit probate court jurisdictions to matters where the controlling (main) issue is the settlement, partition, or distribution of an estate. An action is “incident to an estate” when the outcome will directly affect the assimilation (absorption of the estate), collection, and distribution of a deceased person’s estate.
The court held that the action was neither appertaining to or incident to the estate of Booney Moore therefore the probate court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit and their original ruling is therefore invalid
Coble Wall and Cluck raised 54 points of contention that can be broken up into 7 topic sections in their appeal, all of which are no longer relevant because of the lack of jurisdiction of the original court; however, some points may have been upheld had jurisdiction not been an issue. Here, the points of contention raised would have all been overruled even if the probate court had the proper jurisdiction.
In order for a court to proceed with trial the parties must have proper notice of the suit meaning they are aware of the charges and date set for the trial within a certain amount of time before the trial takes place. The points on notice would have been appealed had the court had proper jurisdiction. Wall and Cluck argued that because the case had been called and then reset for a different date that this constituted an abuse of discretion of the court. However, the record showed that Cluck had admitted to being aware of the change of date, and therefore, they could find no abuse of discretion.
Cluck and Wall argued that the trial court made an error in refusing to consider certain special exceptions in their case. A special exception in court is a procedural device that allows a party to question the sufficiency of their opponent’s claim. Here, the special exceptions were overruled because it was not shown on the record that Cluck or Wall had urged the court to consider the special exceptions during their original answer, and therefore, they cannot be considered in court.
The doctrine of res judicata can be asserted to block a claim from being relitigated or retried in court when a following claim is brought into court upon the same cause of action or retrying issues common to separate causes. Collateral estoppel is different from res judicata as it blocks the re-litigation or retrying, in a subsequent case with a different cause of action, of issues tried in court and issues essential to the previous judgment. Wall and Cluck argue that because this case is a subsequent case of the suit against SASA that it is barred from re-litigation under the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel. However, the court says these claims would be overruled because the case against SASA stems from a different cause of action than the case against Wall and Cluck, and it therefore does not apply.
Wall and Cluck also argue that because the issue they are being tried for was brought on by an action that occurred more than two years prior that it is barred from being tried under the statute of limitations because the statute of limitations here had a bar against cases that are caused by actions that happened over two years prior. However, this is an issue that Wall and Cluck would have had to contest in their original trial. If a party wants to argue that their case is invalid under the statute of limitations, they must bring it up at the trial court level, and because they did not do this (they raised it on appeal), it would be overruled by the court.
One of the claims against Wall and Cluck was the breach of a fiduciary duty. A fiduciary duty is a duty that entails one party acting in the benefit and for the benefit of another party. Palmer argues that Wall and Cluck had a fiduciary duty to act in and for the benefit of the estate, and that they breached it with their actions. Wall and Cluck argue that there was no fiduciary duty to be broken. This would be overruled by the court because Coble Wall, acting as the administrator of the estate, had assumed a legal duty to take care of and manage the estate properly.
It being established that a fiduciary duty does exist, Wall and Cluck’s next argument is that there was no breach of said duty. They argue that they cannot be charged with negligence or gross negligence because their actions were not the cause of the damages that Palmer and his party has suffered. However, the court found that Wall and Cluck did not estimate the value of the estate correctly, and because of this the parties bringing suit did suffer loss, and also because of this, the estate plan could not achieve its purpose. The court found that this point would be overruled because the misrepresentation of the estate’s value is exactly the cause of the damages suffered by Palmer and his party.
Palmer had claims against Wall and Cluck under a very specific act called the Deceptive Trade Practices Act which protects consumers against false, misleading, and deceptive business practices and breaches of warranty. Wall and Cluck argue that this act does not apply to their actions because they correctly represented a plan to Palmer and the others bringing suit that would minimize taxes substantially in a way that would greatly benefit both the estate and the beneficiaries of the estate. They argued that the other party were consumers who sought to acquire services from Cluck and Wall, and all their actions were in regulation with the DTPA. The court does not address this argument and does not make a judgment call on whether or not it would be overruled. They instead state that finding a lack of jurisdiction of the probate court makes addressing this point unnecessary.
Avoiding probate can be as simple as setting up a proper estate plan. In fact, it makes sense to set up a proper estate plan even if you intend on avoiding probate. Why would you want to avoid probate? The cost of probate is often hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it can take years to settle. Estate planning can save the family a lot of time and money. In Texas, the cost of probate is often significantly less than in other states.
Statutory probate courts are courts whose jurisdiction was created by Texas law and is governed by the state. Contrast that with a court that has its jurisdiction granted by the constitution or by an act of Congress, such as the federal district courts, federal bankruptcy courts, or a court with exclusive jurisdiction over a subject matter or geographic area, such as the Veterans Court of Texas.
The main difference between a constitutional court and a statutory court is the source of their jurisdiction. A constitutional court gets its power from either the constitution or an act of Congress, while a statutory court’s jurisdiction is created by state law. This means that constitutional courts are bound by federal law, while statutory courts are only bound by state law. Because of this, constitutional courts have more power than statutory courts.
The following list shows Texas counties with statutory probate courts.
Probate court is the court where matters relating to the estate of a deceased person are dealt with. The court has the power to appoint an executor or administrator to deal with the estate, and to distribute the estate among the beneficiaries. The court also has the power to settle any disputes that may arise in relation to the estate.
Probate is a legal process in which a court oversees distributions of a person’s estate. It’s more than just settling debts and closing accounts; it includes paying taxes, taking title of property and other postmortem tasks.
On its face, probate can be an intimidating process. It can be expensive and time-consuming, especially if you don’t know the law or if there are challenges to the case, such as a will or creditor claims. That’s where an experienced Texas probate attorney can help.
The experienced probate lawyers at Kreig LLC have years of experience helping people through the process of probate and resolving disputes over estates. From setting up trusts that can help control the distribution of an estate during its administration to protecting personal privacy and ensuring that heirs receive their rightful share, we can help you make sure your loved one’s wishes are followed through to completion.
The post Make Sure a Probate Court Has Jurisdiction to Hear Your Case appeared first on El Paso Probate Attorneys, Kreig LLC.