Dependent Probate Administration Before filing the probate application, one has to make a choice between dependent or independent probate administration. The term “dependent administration” refers to the probate being administered by the personal representative with direct supervision by the court. As explained below, dependent administration is an extremely restrictive method for administering an estate. This […]
The answer to this question depends on the jurisdiction in which the case is being tried. Some jurisdictions allow for the admission of such documents, while others do not. In general, however, the answer is yes, documents connected to prior claims are admissible in court if they have a sufficient connection to the matter at […]
Can a court rule to overturn a jury decision? (JNOV)
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.
Probate Case
Estate of Querner, 974 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, no writ)
Facts of the Case: Trial Process for Civil Cases
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.
What This Case Means: Judgment notwithstanding the verdict reached
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.
Do You Need to Hire a Probate Attorney in El Paso?
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.
Can a judge overrule a jury acquittal (or not guilty verdict)?
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.
What happens if a jury cannot agree on a verdict?
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.
What is a trial outcome?
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.
Venue refers to the court in which a proceeding takes place. A party may want to transfer venue for a number of reasons including convenience, type of court, or possibly because the original venue lacks the jurisdiction/ability to hear the case. A person’s domicile is their permanent place of residence. How is domicile established? When […]
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:
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.
Do You Need a Probate Attorney to Settle an Estate in El Paso, Texas?
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 –>
What this Case Means
Subject Matter Jurisdiction of Statutory Probate Courts: State Limited Jurisdiction
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
Remaining Points of contention
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.
Improper Notice: Records
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.
Special exceptions: Examples
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.
Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel: Laws
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.
Statute of Limitations
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.
Duty
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.
Breach of Duty
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.
Deceptive Trade Practices Act
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.
How do you get around probate court? Avoiding probate
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.
What counties in Texas have statutory probate courts?
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.
Bexar County
Collin County
Dallas County
Denton County
El Paso County
Galveston County
Harris County
Hidalgo County
Tarrant County
Travis County
What happens in probate court?
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.
What is a probate case?
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.
After a loved one dies, their property must go through probate court in order to be transferred to the rightful heirs. If you are named as the executor in the will, you will be responsible for ensuring that the process goes smoothly. Here’s what you need to know about transferring a case to probate court. […]
A probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction that has jurisdiction over the probate of wills and the administration of estates in Texas. Probate courts are usually operated at the county level, although there are a few county-level courts that operate independently of the regular probate courts. How do you know how to pick […]
If you are named as the executor of a will, you’ll be in charge of managing the deceased person’s estate. The executor is the personal representative. However, you might be disqualified from serving as the executor if you don’t meet certain criteria under Texas state law. The Probate Case In re Estate of Gaines, 262. […]
A guardian is a person who has been appointed by the court to make decisions regarding the personal matters of an individual. A guardian may be appointed to take care of a minor or adult with disabilities or an elderly person. As a guardian you are legally responsible for managing your ward’s assets, including their income and property. You have the power to enter into contracts and manage your ward’s financial affairs in accordance with his or her will, any trust documents and/or any other applicable legislation. This article deals with the assets of a deceased person and the powers and duties of a guardian of the estate of a person who is a minor or of unsound mind.
Under guardianship, a court will appoint someone to manage your personal finances when you are unable to do so. This person is referred to as your “guardian” and is responsible for financial decisions on your behalf.
In Carroll v. Carroll, 893 S.W.2d 62 (Tex. App. 1994), the Court of Appeals considered the jurisdiction of a county judge in a guardianship proceeding to order, one year after the ward’s death, the sale of land in the ward’s estate to pay the ward’s debt to the nursing home in which she resided for twenty-one years before her death.
Terminology:
non compos menti: not having control/mastery of one’s mind.
Parties
Appellants: Carl Carroll Jr., ET AL.
Appellees: Vernon Carroll, Norman Carroll, A. J. Carroll
Facts and Procedural History
On August 20, 1960, Ed Davis and Ida Mae Carroll Davis executed a joint will. Ida Mae Carroll Davis was appointed independent executor of her husband’s estate. The will provided that Norman Carroll, A. J. Carroll and Vernon Carroll were to receive title to the Davises’ 59.7 acre farm, subject only to Ida Davis’ life estate. On July 2, 1965, at the age of 71 years, Ida Davis moved into a nursing home. Her nephew, Dr. Carl Carroll, subsequently commenced guardianship proceedings against her and the county court declared Ida Davis to be non compos mentis and appointed appellant, Dr. Carroll, as guardian of her person and estate. Ida Davis died on September 17, 1986 at the age of 92 years.
On August 27, 1987, nine years after he was appointed guardian and almost one year after Ida Davis’ death, Dr. Carroll filed an application (in the guardianship case) and requested permission to sell the 59.7 acre farm. In the application, Dr. Carroll alleged that the farm was worth $ 60,600.00. Dr. Carroll also submitted a claim from the nursing home which alleged that the guardianship estate owed the nursing home $ 97,586.39. On September 8, 1987, the county court granted Dr. Carroll’s application and signed an order of sale. Dr. Carroll subsequently executed a deed and conveyed the 59.7 acre farm to Clarence Carroll, as trustee for the nursing home, to satisfy the debt to the home. On September 21, 1987, the county court entered a decree confirming the sale of the property by the guardian.
On December 31, 1987, Vernon Carroll, Appellee filed an application in the County Court of Lavaca County to probate Ida Davis’ will. On June 26, 1990, the county court admitted Ida Davis’ will to probate and appointed Vernon Carroll as independent executor of her estate.
On August 19, 1991, Vernon Carroll and others alleged that pursuant to the will, they owned the 59.7 acre farm in fee simple and sued appellants, Carl Carroll, for a declaratory judgment, trespass to try title, removal of cloud on title, cancellation of deed, damages and attorneys’ fees. On November 25, 1992, the district court rendered judgment declaring the following to be void and of no effect: the county court’s order of sale, the county court’s decree confirming sale, and Dr. Carroll’s deed conveying the 59.7 acre farm to Clarence Carroll as trustee for the Yoakum Memorial Nursing Home. The district court declared that fee simple title to the 59.7 acre farm passed to Vernon Carroll and others named in the will. Plaintiffs were awarded damages (rental value of the property) and attorneys’ fees, and the court issued a writ of possession in favor of appellees.
Appellants now complain that the district court should have dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction because Vernon Carroll’s application for probate of Ida Davis’ will, and the guardianship proceeding were commenced, and pending, in the county court prior to the initiation of appellees’ action in the district court.
Issue
Did the district court have jurisdiction to hear this case while the deceased’s estate remained pending in the county court?
Under Tex. Prob. Code Ann. § 5(b) and (e) the District Court of Lavaca County and the County Court of Lavaca County have concurrent jurisdiction. District courts, the courts of general jurisdiction, have jurisdiction over suits involving the validity of claims against the estate of a decedent which is being independently administered.
In the present case, because a suit was brought to establish title, and the interests of the real property, the district court is the more appropriate tribunal. The nature of appellees’ cause of action involved issues that the probate court did not have jurisdiction over. In addition, the powers of the probate court are inadequate to grant the plaintiffs the full relief and because of this, the district court has jurisdiction and may grant such relief.
Takeaways
A guardian has no authority to sell property belonging to the estate of the deceased ward one year after the ward’s death.
Upon the death of the ward, the guardian has only the obligation and authority to file a final accounting and to inform the court of the expenses and debts against the estate remaining unpaid (Tex. Prob. Code Ann. § 405).
As long as an estate remains under control of an independent executor, the probate court lacks jurisdiction to consider and approve claims against the estate. (Tex. Prob. Code Ann. § 145(h) (1980).
District courts, the courts of general jurisdiction, have jurisdiction over suits involving the validity of claims against the estate (such as a title claim) of a decedent which is being independently administered.
Do You Need a Probate Attorney to Settle an Estate in El Paso, Texas?
Probate attorneys are skilled in estate and trust administration, from the initial delivery of an accurate death certificate to the final distribution of all assets according to the court order. 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.
When a person dies, their assets must be distributed according to the deceased’s last will and testament. The process of distributing the assets can sometimes be tricky and often takes years to complete. If the deceased had an estate, distributing their assets can be extremely complex and time-consuming.
What is the difference between guardian and successor guardian?
A guardian is a person appointed by a court to manage the property of another person, usually a minor child or an adult who is legally unable to manage his or her own affairs. If a guardian is no longer able to fulfill their duties, the court will appoint an acting successor.
When does guardianship end?
When a minor reaches the age of majority, their guardianship ends. Most states set the age of majority at 18; some states make it 21. The age of majority will vary depending on whether the child is in care or not. In many cases, the guardian remains in charge and simply changes from sole to joint.
What happens to a child if their guardian dies?
When a guardian dies, the duties of that guardian are transferred to the successor guardian. The successor guardian is responsible for all subsequent decisions concerning the child or incapacitated adult until another guardian can be appointed.
What happens when a ward of the state dies?
A guardian must take care of the ward’s final wishes. This includes making funeral, burial or cremation arrangements. In some instances, the guardianship may be ended via a special court order after a hearing is held detailing the reasons why it should end and what has been done on behalf of the ward.
