In re Stark, 126 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]).
Testatrix’s estate was pending in a County Court at Law. Beneficiary
brought an action in District Court against a variety of persons
including the independent executors of Testatrix’s estate. The District
Court granted a motion to transfer Beneficiary’s action to the County
Court at Law where the administration was pending. Beneficiary then
brought this mandamus action to force the District Court to withdraw the
transfer order.
The appellate court denied mandamus. The court began by rejecting
Beneficiary’s claim that a district court lacks the authority to
transfer a case to a statutory county court. The court explained that
such a transfer is authorized under the Government Code when permitted
by local rules as was the case here.
The court next addressed Beneficiary’s claim that the transfer was
improper because Beneficiary was seeking a constructive trust remedy
which is not available in a county court at law. The court stated that
“the mere request for a constructive trust will not necessarily oust the
dominant jurisdiction of a statutory county court sitting in probate. *
* * A district court properly declines to exercise its jurisdiction over
matters incident to an estate when, although a constructive trust is
requested, the statutory county court has the power to afford adequate
relief.” Id. at 640. In this case, the estate contained sufficient
assets to pay the damages Beneficiary was seeking.
Note: A strong dissent argued that because Beneficiary was seeking a
constructive trust over certain real property and that every parcel of
real property is unique, Beneficiary would suffer irreparable injury if
instead of recovering the property, the court awarded only monetary
damages.
Beneficiary’s final argument was that the District Court should have
retained the case because it also involved a charitable trust and Trust
Code § 115.001 gives the District Court exclusive jurisdiction over
trusts when the county does not have a statutory probate court. The
court rejected this argument because Beneficiary’s claims were tort
claims not within the meaning of the section because they are of a
totally different character than the enumerated actions.
Moral: An action which might presumably be handled in District Court in
a county without a statutory probate court such as to impose a
constructive trust of deal with tort claims against a trust, may
actually end up being heard in a county court at law.