Jansen v. Fitzpatrick, 14 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
Testatrix deeded real property to Niece about two month’s prior to
Testatrix’s death. Residuary Beneficiaries and their successors in
interest filed suit to set aside the deed on the grounds of lack of
capacity and undue influence so they could share in this real property.
While the litigation was pending, other Residuary Beneficiaries died and
their successors in interest were substituted.
Niece, who was also serving as the independent executrix, asserted by
way of a motion in limine that the successors in interest must
demonstrate their interests and authenticate their claims by obtaining a
determination of heirship or by some other judicial proceeding in the
county of the residence of their deceased ascendant. The lower court
determined that the successors had not demonstrated that they were
“interested parties” as defined in Probate Code § 3(r) and thus
dismissed the case for lack of standing.
The appellate court reversed. The court first noted “that a motion in
limine is not the proper procedural tool to challenge a party’s standing
to sue or a court’s jurisdiction to hear a claim in a suit seeking to
set aside a deed.” Jensen at 430. Instead, a plea to the jurisdiction
should be used.
The court determined that it had jurisdiction over the case because
Niece admitted in her pleadings that the successors in interest plead
their status as successors and the pleadings demonstrated that the
successors in interest had standing. Niece introduced no evidence to
show that the pleadings were false and thus she failed to establish that
the court lacked jurisdiction.
Moral: Problems may arise when the original parties to an action die and
successors in interest take over. To avoid these problems, the status of
the successors and should be clearly documented and presented to the
court.