Ayala v. Brittingham, 131 S.W.3d 3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003), rev'd, 193 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. 2006).
County court at law admitted a foreign will to probate and granted
ancillary letters testamentary. Executrix then sued Heir claiming that
she and other heirs wrongfully appropriated over $60 million in estate
assets. Heirs moved to dismiss Executrix’s action asserting that the
county court at law had no subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied
the motion and Heir appealed.
The court began its analysis by holding that the county court at law’s
order was final for the purposes of appeal citing the landmark Texas
case of Crowson v. Wakeham, 897 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. 1995).
The court then reviewed the operation of Probate Code § 95 which
authorizes the admission of a foreign will to probate in Texas if it is
properly established under the laws of another jurisdiction. Key to the
application of this procedure is for there to be estate property in
Texas. The court explained that the claim of the estate to recover
possession of or collect damages for the conversion of estate property
that may have been located in Texas at the time of the testator’s death
is a right of action which constitutes estate property. Consequently,
the county court at law had subject matter jurisdiction.
Moral: A potential claim that estate assets were removed from Texas is
sufficient to give Texas courts the ability to conduct an ancillary
probate.
Ayala v. Brittingham, 131 S.W.3d 3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003), rev'd, 193 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. 2006).
County court at law admitted a foreign will to probate and granted
ancillary letters testamentary. Executrix then sued Heir claiming that
she and other heirs wrongfully appropriated over $60 million in estate
assets. Heirs moved to remove Executrix from office. The court denied
the motion and Heir appealed.
The appellate court reversed. The court began its analysis by examining
Probate Code § 222(b)(5) which permits the court to remove a personal
representative when the person becomes incapable of properly performing
his or her duties. Although great deference is given to the county court
at law’s decision, the appellate court held that the lower court abused
its discretion in not removing Executrix because its decision was
arbitrary, unreasonable, and without reference to any guiding rules and
principles. The court enumerates an extensive list of factors to support
its finding that the discord and conflicts between the family members
and the conflicting interests of the estate, the beneficiaries,
creditors, and Executrix were such that it was unreasonable for the
court to keep Executrix in office. For example, Executrix filed in
Mexico an action to set aside her marital agreement and claim part of
the estate as her community property.
Moral: The court will consider a wide range of factors in determining
whether an individual is unsuitable to be a personal representative.
Conflict between the interests of the personal representative and the
estate is one of these factors.