Parrish v. Rutherford, 159 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg, 2004, no pet.).
The trial court declared that Alleged Heir was a daughter of
Intestate. Known Heirs appealed on a variety of procedural and
substantive grounds which the appellate court rejected. Procedurally,
Known Heirs argued that they were entitled to a default judgment because
Alleged Heir did not file an answer. In reality, the attorney ad litem
appointed to represent unknown heirs filed an answer on the behalf of
Alleged Heir. Known Heirs also incorrectly claimed that they were
entitled to a default judgment because Alleged Heir did not attend the
trial. In addition, Known Heirs tried to show that Alleged Heir had
requested that she be withdrawn from the case but there was no evidence
in the record to support this assertion and thus she had a justiciable
interest in the case.
Known Heirs were also upset that Administratrix advocated for Alleged
Heir to be deemed a child and was then awarded attorney’s fees for so
doing. The appellate court explained that Administratrix has a duty to
locate all Intestate’s heirs and distribute estate assets to them.
Probate Code § 242 allows Administratrix to receive attorney fees from
the estate for legal work properly performed in the administration
process.
Substantively, the appellate court determined that there was sufficient
evidence from Intestate’s wife and Alleged Heir’s mother to prove that
Alleged Heir was intestate’s child. It did not matter that another
witnesses was the attorney ad litem who had withdrawn from the case six
months before trial.
Moral: Heirs will fight very hard to keep their shares in an intestate’s
estate from being reduced by siblings whose parentage may be in doubt.