Category: Probate Law

  • Conflicts of Law: What Law Applies?

    When Two Laws Conflict

    Sometimes the issue arises of which state law to apply to a case. Depending on which law is applied can change the outcome of a case and what a party is held liable for. How does a court decide which law to apply? What happens when there are conflicting laws that could change the outcome of a case? Greenberg Traurig of New York, P.C. v. Moody answers these questions.

    Greenberg Traurig v. Moody, 161 S.W.3d 56 (Tex. App. 2005)

    Facts of the Case: Meaning and Definition

    The investors of a Delaware corporation called IFT brought fraud actions against the law firm that represented them, Greenberg Traurig. IFT was a corporation that was formed to design, develop, and market biotech indoor aquaculture production and processing facilities. As counsel for IFT Greenberg Traurig agreed to represent IFT “in connection with both the Company’s general corporate affairs and a proposed initial public offering, together with other attendant corporate and [Securities and Exchange Commission] matters.” Essentially Traurig’s responsibilities were to represent IFT accurately and responsibly to its investors and ensure that IFT was complying with the securities laws.

    The investors of IFT brought charges against Traurig alleging that Traurig was non-compliant with the securities laws. They brought charges of fraud against Traurig which the trial court found Traurig guilty of under Texas law. On appeal, the court of appeals found that the trial court erred in applying Texas law to the case, and that they should have applied New York law. Applying New York law, the court of appeals reversed the decision of the trial court that granted the investors to receive compensation for their private claims since under New York law the investors had no right to a private claim. The court of appeals did however uphold the trial court’s ruling that Traurig acted with an intent to defraud the investors.

    What This Case Means: Rules, Principles, and Provisions

    A conflict of laws arises when a court must decide which law to apply to a case because the laws that could potentially apply would have varying outcomes changing the court’s decision of the case. Here, the trial court applied Texas law to all of the claims against Greenberg Traurig. Greenberg Traurig, however, asserted that New York law should be the law applied. The investors bringing the claims against Traurig argued that Traurig had already waived their right to argue this point; however, the court of appeals disagreed with this argument. The court of appeals found that Traurig had in fact preserved their right to argue this point because they had asserted to the trial court in several ways how New York law was applicable to this case.

    A party may waive certain rights in court if they are not brought up soon enough in the trial process. If a party does not raise certain arguments at the trial court level, that party waives their right to bring that argument up later in the appeals process or further down the line. Some arguments may be brought up at any point in the trial process; however, a conflict of laws issue must be brought up at the trial court level. Had the court of appeals found that Traurig did not raise this issue in the trial court, then Traurig would not be able to argue this to the court of appeals. The court of appeals did find that Traurig raised this issue in trial court and therefore, it was still up for review.

    Since the issue was still up for review, it was then the court of appeals’ job to find which state law should actually apply. In Texas, a conflict of laws issue is solved using a method called “the most significant relationship test.” This essentially means that Texas courts, when determining a conflict of laws issue, look to find which state has the most meaningful connections with and interests in the parties and transactions. Here, the claims against Traurig can be grouped into two categories: 1) fraud-based claims and 2) conspiracy claims. The court of appeals needed only to analyze the fraud-based claims to determine the conflict of laws issue as there is no substantive difference between Texas law and New York law in regards to conspiracy claims.

    The general factors of the most significant relationship test that are most applicable here are: the needs of the interstate and international systems, the relevant policies of the forum, the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue, the protection of justified expectations, the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, the certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result, and the ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied. These general factors can be boiled down into more specific topics that the court of appeals used to determine what should be the controlling law. These more specific topics include contacts in the state (referring to people, corporations, and relationships related to the suit) and where the incidents giving rise to the suit took place.

    In the trial court the Investors asserted a variety of allegations against several different parties. Some of the allegations were aimed at IFT and its principals, with whom the Investors had personal contact and direct dealings, while other allegations were aimed at defendants like Greenberg Traurig, with whom the Investors had no contact and no direct dealings. This important distinction greatly impacts the conflict-of-laws analysis as the personal contact and direct dealings would create a more significant relationship than the indirect and non-contact would.

    Significantly, all the events relating to the Investors’ claims against Greenberg Traurig occurred outside of Texas. Although the Investors lived in Texas, there was little other connection with Texas. Most of the original parties being charged were residents of New York or Pennsylvania. The meetings and communications between the Investors and one or more alleged conspirators took place outside of Texas. Most corporations involved were based in New York or Pennsylvania. IFT’s facilities were located in Pennsylvania and Maine.

    The conduct alleged to have caused the Investors’ injuries occurred mostly in New York and, to a lesser extent, in Pennsylvania, the Texas interests were far less significant given all considerations. The court of appeals found that New York, as the central point of most of the alleged fraudulent acts and as Greenberg Traurig’s principal place of business, had the greatest interest in the case, the closest connection, most contacts, and therefore, should be the controlling law. Under the “most significant relationship” test, the court found that Texas lacked the contacts with, or interests in, the litigation that could support a finding that it had the most significant relationship.

    Do you need an Experienced Attorney to protect your interests?

    If you are involved in a legal dispute, it is important to understand which law applies. The law that applies in a particular case is known as the “conflict of law.” The conflict of law can be complex, and an experienced attorney can help you navigate the different laws that may apply to your case. Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation. (512) 273-7444

    https://austin-probate.com/

    What are conflicts of law principles and theories? Choice of law?

    There are numerous conflict of law principles, which can be generally classified into two groups: choice of law and recognition and enforcement of judgments.

    Conflicts of law principles governing the choice of law, also known as lex loci, require that the courts apply the law of the jurisdiction with the most significant relationship to the subject matter of the dispute. This is often the jurisdiction where the events giving rise to the litigation occurred, but not always. For example, in a contract dispute involving parties from different states, the state where the contract was made may have little connection to the rest of the parties or subject matter, and so another state’s laws might be more appropriate.

    The conflict of law principles governing recognition and enforcement of judgments, also known as comity, require that courts give deference to judgments issued by courts in other jurisdictions. This is based on the notion that it is unfair for a party to have to litigate the same issue twice, in two different jurisdictions. However, there are limits to comity, and a court may decline to recognize or enforce a foreign judgment if doing so would violate public policy.

    There are two types of conflicts that can arise in our legal system: jurisdictional conflicts and choice of law conflicts. Jurisdictional conflicts occur when there is more than one court that has the authority to hear a case. Choice of law conflicts occur when there is more than one legal system that could be used to resolve a dispute.

    What is an example of conflict of law?

    There are many examples of conflict of law, but one common one is when two people live in different states and get divorced. If they have children, the custody arrangement may be decided based on the laws of the state where the child lives, rather than the state where the parents live.

    Which type of law is used to help resolve disputes?

    When two parties have a dispute, the law that is used to help resolve the issue is called conflict of law. There are many different types of law, so which one is used can depend on the specific situation. If the dispute is between two businesses, for example, contract law may be used. If the dispute is between two countries, public international law may be used. And if the dispute is between two people, family law may be used. The type of law that is used in a particular case can have a big impact on the outcome, so it’s important to choose the right one.

    An example of when federal and state laws conflict

    When it comes to the law, there are times when federal and state laws can conflict with each other. A recent example of this is when the state of California passed a law that made it legal for people to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. However, under federal law, marijuana is still considered an illegal drug. This created a conflict between the state and federal government, with each side arguing that their respective laws should be followed.

    In cases like this, it’s usually up to the courts to decide which law should take precedence. In the case of California’s medicinal marijuana law, the courts have so far sided with the state, ruling that people who use marijuana for medicinal purposes should not be prosecuted under federal law. However, this is just one example of how federal and state laws can conflict, and it’s likely that there will be more conflicts in the future as states continue to pass their own laws on various issues.

    What is Private International Law?

    Private international law is the body of law that governs cases with a foreign element. This can include anything from cross-border business transactions to personal injury cases that occur in another country. When a case has a foreign element, it can be difficult to determine which country’s laws should apply. This is where conflicts of law comes in. Conflicts of law is the body of law that governs how to determine which country’s laws apply in a given situation.

    The post Conflicts of Law: What Law Applies? appeared first on Austin Probate Attorney, Kreig LLC.

  • When Is an Estate Legally Closed in Texas?

    When someone goes through the process of an estate, this usually means that they will have to liquidate the deceased’s assets. This is not always a simple financial task to undertake, and there are many different legal and monetary details involved. You might be aware of some of these steps, but after reading this article […]

    The post When Is an Estate Legally Closed in Texas? appeared first on Houston Probate Attorneys, Kreig LLC.

  • Can You Bring a Law Suit Against a Texas County in Probate Court?

    In a person’s will, they may leave either personal or real property to an entity rather than to an individual. They could leave land to a city, business, organization, county, or the like. What happens when there is a suit against a county rather than an individual? What is the controlling law and how is […]

    The post Can You Bring a Law Suit Against a Texas County in Probate Court? appeared first on Dallas Probate Attorneys.

  • When Is a Judgment Considered “Final” in a Probate Case?

    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.

  • Can Probate Court Be the Proper Venue for a Personal Injury Case?

    Can someone bring a lawsuit regarding personal injury, death, or property damage in a probate court? Let’s look at the case of Gonzalez v. Reliant Energy Co. to find out. Legal Terminology Anti-suit Injunction A remedy issued by a court in one jurisdiction that prohibits a litigant from initiating or continuing litigation in another jurisdiction. […]

    The post Can Probate Court Be the Proper Venue for a Personal Injury Case? appeared first on San Antonio Probate Attorney, Kreig LLC.

  • Restricted Appeals in Texas Probate Matters

    If you are involved in a probate matter in Texas, it is important to be aware of the restricted appeal process. This process can limit your ability to challenge certain decisions made by the court, so it is important to understand how it works before you find yourself in that situation. This case helps shed some light on the restricted appeals process.

    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.

    Presumption of Revocation: when a will was last known to be in the decedent’s possession and cannot be located after death, a rebuttable presumption of revocation arises.

    Probate Case

    In re Estate of Wilson, 252 S.W.3d 708, 2008 Tex. App. — Texarkana (2008, no pet.)

    Facts & Procedural History: Hearing

    Shelli Kay Wilson (Testatrix) filed an application to probate a will and have letters testamentary issued on December 20, 2006. Testatrix and Leslie Wayne Wilson (Decedent) had drafted the will using internet forms. After Decedent’s death, the original will could not be found. Brett Lee Wilson (Appellant) received service of citation on December 23, 3006. On January 3, 2006, Testatrix filed an amended application for probate. Shortly afterwards, the trial court held a hearing and admitted a copy of the will to probate. Appellant did not appear at the hearing, nor did he file a timely contest. Testatrix also testified at the hearing that Appellant had no intention to oppose the application. However, on March 22, 2007, Appellant filed a motion for new trial and an opposition to the probate of the will. Appellant stated that the motion was timely and met the requirements of Rule 306(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

    After the trial court denied Contestant’s motion, he appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court. The Court held that: (1) Testatrix was not required inform Contestant of her amended petition to probate the will; (2) the presumption of revocation had not been rebutted through legally sufficient evidence; and (3) the appropriate remedy was not to render judgment, but to reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

    For the first issue, the Court stated that Rule 21 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (which Appellant argued applied to probate proceedings) did not apply to will contests. Therefore, Testatrix was not required to notify Appellant that the application had been amended. For the second issue, the Court determined that the evidence provided (namely an affidavit submitted by Testatrix) was not enough to rebut the presumption because it did not explain why the original will could not be located. For the third issue, the Court stated the decision not to render judgment was proper because Appellant requested a remand in his brief and the facts were not fully developed (since there was no contest to the will’s probate).

    Main Considerations: Process of Appealing a Judge’s Decision

    Does a restricted appeal offer the same scope of review as an ordinary appeal?

    Yes, such an appeal gives an appellant a review of the entire case. The sole restriction is that the error must be visible within the record. Documents within the record include all papers on file in the appeal, the statement of facts, and the reporter’s record. This means that evidence not provided to the trial court prior to the final judgment may not be included.

    What are the requirements of a restricted appeal?

    An appellant must show that: (1) within six months of the judgment being issued, they filed notice of the restricted appeal; (2) they were a party to the underlying lawsuit; (3) they did not participate in the hearing that led to the judgment at issue and did not file any post-judgment motions or requests findings of facts or legal conclusions; and (4) the error is reflected within the record.

    How can the presumption of revocation be overcome?

    This presumption can be overcome through: (1) proof and circumstances suggesting that the testator did not intend to revoke the will or (2) evidence that another person fraudulently destroyed the will. In addition, recognition of a will’s continued validity and the testator’s continued affection for the chief beneficiary under the will (without the existence of evidence showing that the decedent was dissatisfied/wanted to change the will) can rebut the presumption of revocation of a missing original will.

    The Takeaway

    In re Estate of Wilson shows that, when an appellate court upholds a legally sufficiency issue, the proper remedy is to reverse and remand the case back to the lower court.

    Do you need help from an Experienced Texas Probate Attorney?

    Do you need help with a probate matter in Austin-metro area or the surrounding communities?  We are experienced probate attorneys who represent clients with sensitive probate matters.  If so, please give us a call us at (512) 273-7444 or use the contact form below to see how we can help.

    https://austin-probate.com/

    What happens if you lose an appeal?

    If you lose an appeal in a Texas probate matter, you may be able to file a restricted appeal. A restricted appeal is a type of appeal that is available only in certain circumstances. You must meet all of the requirements for a restricted appeal, and you must file your appeal within the time limit set by law. If you do not meet all of the requirements or if you miss the deadline, you will not be able to file a restricted appeal.

    How to appeal a court decision?

    If you’re not happy with a court decision in your probate case, you can file an appeal. Here’s how:

    1. Talk to your lawyer. You’ll need to file a notice of appeal and other paperwork with the court, and you’ll need to do it within a specific time frame. Your lawyer can help you with this.

    2. File a notice of appeal. You’ll need to file this with the court that made the decision you’re appealing, and you’ll need to do it within 30 days of the court’s decision.

    3. Serve notice on the other parties. Once you’ve filed your notice of appeal, you’ll need to serve copies on all the other parties in the case. You can do this by mailing them or delivering them in person.

    4. Submit your briefs. You and the other parties will need to submit written arguments, or “briefs,” to the appeals court. The court will then decide whether to hear your case and issue a ruling.

    How to file an appeal?

    If you are not happy with the decision made by the probate court, you have the right to file an appeal. In order to do so, you must first file a notice of appeal with the probate court. The notice must be filed within 30 days after the date of the final judgment or order that you are appealing. Once the notice is filed, the court will set a briefing schedule and oral arguments will be scheduled.

    If you are unsure of how to file an appeal or what grounds you may have for an appeal, you should speak with an experienced probate attorney. An attorney can help you determine if you have a valid basis for an appeal and can assist you in navigating the appellate process.

    How to appeal a case?

    Appealing a case in Texas probate matters can be a difficult process, but there are some tips that can make it easier.

    First, it is important to understand the grounds for appeal. An appellate court will only consider errors that were made in the lower court proceedings. This means that you cannot raise new issues or arguments on appeal.

    Second, it is important to know the deadlines for filing an appeal. In most cases, you must file your notice of appeal within 30 days of the final order or judgment from the lower court.

    Third, it is helpful to have an experienced attorney to assist you with the appeals process. Appellate attorneys know the ins and outs of the appeals process and can help you navigate it successfully.

    What is a notice of appeal?

    If you’ve been named as an executor or administrator in a Texas probate proceeding, and the will is being contested, you may be wondering what a notice of appeal is.

    A notice of appeal is a formal document filed with the court that starts the appeals process. It lets the court know that you (as the executor or administrator) intend to challenge the ruling.

    The appeals process can be complex and time-consuming, so it’s important to understand all of your options and legal rights before moving forward. An experienced probate attorney can help you navigate the process and ensure that your rights are protected.

    The post Restricted Appeals in Texas Probate Matters appeared first on Austin Probate Attorney, Kreig LLC.

  • How to Handle Small Estates in Texas with Limited Assets

    How to Handle Small Estates in Texas If you find yourself in the position of having to handle a small estate in Texas with limited assets, there are some steps you can take to make the process as smooth as possible. First, you’ll need to obtain a certified copy of the death certificate from the […]

    The post How to Handle Small Estates in Texas with Limited Assets appeared first on Houston Probate Attorneys, Kreig LLC.

  • Who Gets What under Texas Probate Laws If Someone Dies with a Will?

    When someone dies with a will in Texas, the court will follow the instructions in the will to distribute the deceased person’s assets. However, if there are any questions about the will or if anyone challenges it, the court may get involved to make sure that the assets are distributed according to Texas probate law. […]

    The post Who Gets What under Texas Probate Laws If Someone Dies with a Will? appeared first on Dallas Probate Attorneys.

  • What’s the Difference Between Probate & Non-Probate Property?

    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.