Garza v. Rodriguez, 87 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. denied).
Testatrix’s will granted Nephew a fee simple interest in her estate
subject to a shifting executory interest in Sister and her heirs if
Nephew died without lawful issue of his body. However, the court order
issued by the constitutional county court of Starr County in 1957
closing Testatrix’s estate appeared to grant fee simple absolute title
to Nephew. The order did not mention Sister’s springing executory
interest. No one challenged this order. Nephew died without lawful issue
and thus Sister’s heirs asserted ownership to the property by filing a
will construction action in district court in 1986. In Garza v.
Rodriguez, 18 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.), the
appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action
because of lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the action for lack
of jurisdiction.
Sister’s heirs then filed a lawsuit in the statutory county court of
Starr County to establish their interest. Nephew’s heirs filed a motion
to dismiss asserting that this suit was a collateral attack on a final
order issued by the constitutional county court in 1957. Sister’s heirs
responded by alleging that the 1957 order did not directly resolve the
title issue raised by the springing executory interest and that if the
order had divested Sister’s heirs of the interest, the court lacked
jurisdiction to do so. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and
Sister’s heirs appealed.
The appellate court reversed. The court held that the constitutional
county court lacked jurisdiction under the laws as they existed in 1957
to construe Testatrix’s will to divest any party of any title interest.
Thus, the 1957 order either did not resolve the title matter or if it
did, the order was void and subject to collateral attack. The court then
concluded that the statutory county court had jurisdiction to resolve
the title issue.
Note that the appellate court was careful to explain that it was not
commenting on the merits of Sister’s heirs’ claim to the property
interest.
Moral: Probate orders must be carefully examined to be sure they
correctly state the property interests to which the beneficiaries are
entitled. Correction of errors at a later time may be difficult or
perhaps impossible resulting in the intended beneficiaries losing their
interests.