In re Estate of Figueroa-Gomez, 76 S.W.3d 533 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.).
Decedent’s estate was closed. Thereafter, Dependent Administrator
obtained court approval for expenses she incurred in administering the
estate. Independent Administrator then replaced Dependent Administrator
as the personal representative of the estate. Independent Administrator
subsequently asked the court to set aside the award of expenses. The
court refused to do so and thus Independent Administrator appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. The court held that it had no jurisdiction
to hear an appeal of the award of expenses because Independent
Administrator waited over one year to appeal. The trial court’s order
was a final judgment according to Probate Code § 312(d). Because
Independent Administrator did not appeal this order in a timely fashion,
the judgment became final and is not subject to collateral attack.
Moral: A person wishing to appeal an award of expenses must do so within
the time periods specified by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1.
In re Estate of Figueroa-Gomez, 76 S.W.3d 533 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.).
Decedent’s estate was closed. Independent Administrator then replaced
Dependent Administrator as the personal representative of the estate.
Two months after being removed from office, Dependent Administrator
requested and obtained court approval for a statutory commission.
Independent Administrator subsequently asked the court to set aside the
compensation award. The court refused to do so and thus Independent
Administrator appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. The court began its analysis by explaining
that the trial court had authority to award a statutory commission under
Probate Code § 241. The court rejected Independent Administrator’s claim
that no commission could be awarded because Dependent Administrator had
not filed the administrator’s oath because the evidence showed that she
had indeed filed an oath as a temporary administrator and the commission
was for actions she took while serving as the temporary administrator.
The court also rejected Independent Executor’s argument that the trial
court had no jurisdiction to award a commission because the estate had
become an independent administration at the time the court made the
award. Even though the original dependent administration ceased to exist
when the independent administration began, the trial court retained
jurisdiction over matters relating to the estate. The court quoted
Probate Code § 145(h) which provides that actions subsequent to the
filing of the inventory, appraisement, and list of claims in an
independent administration proceed without court involvement. However,
that section also provides that court involvement is proper if the
Probate Code provides for court action as it does with regard to the
payment of a commission under Probate Code § 241 (requiring court to act
on applications from both dependent and independent administrators and
requiring a court finding that the estate was managed in compliance with
Probate Code standards).
Moral: A court may properly award a statutory commission to a dependent
administrator even if the approval comes after the court appoints an
independent administrator.