Hailey v. Siglar, 194 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. denied).
Daughter transferred funds from Father’s account to her own account
one month before Father signed a durable power of attorney naming
Daughter as her agent. After Father’s death, a statutory county court
exercising probate jurisdiction appointed Son as the independent
executor of Father’s estate. Shortly thereafter, Son filed suit in
district court to recover the pre-power of attorney transferred funds
from Daughter. Son prevailed in this action and Daughter appealed.
The appellate court vacated the district court’s judgment and dismissed
the case without prejudice because the district court lacked
jurisdiction to hear the case. The court rejected Son’s arguments that
the district court had jurisdiction. Son asserted that the amount in
controversy exceeded the amount over which the statutory county court
would have jurisdiction. The court explained that the Texas Supreme
Court had decided decades ago that “[t]he monetary limitations on a
statutory county court’s jurisdiction in civil cases do not limit its
probate jurisdiction.” See English v. Cobb, 593 S.W.2d 674, 675 (Tex.
1979).
The court then discussed the application of Probate Code § 5 as it was
constituted at the time of this case. The county court at law had
jurisdiction over Father's estate and all matters incident to the
estate. Probate Code § 5A(a) includes “all claims by * * * an estate”
within the definition of incident to the estate as it applies to county
courts at law. Son’s attempt to recover funds from Daughter was a claim
by an estate and thus the county court at law had jurisdiction.
The court then examined former Probate Code § 5(a) (repealed in 2003)
which provided that the district court has “original control and
jurisdiction over executors * * * under such regulations as may be
prescribed by law.” The court conducted a detailed analysis of the Texas
Supreme Court case of Bailey v. Cherokee County Appraisal District, 862
S.W.2d 581 (Tex. 1993), and lower court cases interpreting the opinion.
The court recognized the confusion between whether a county court at law
has exclusive or merely dominant jurisdiction in matters incident to an
estate. The court held that the “sounder reading” of the Bailey opinion
is that “the county court at law is vested with exclusive jurisdiction.”
Hailey at 79.
Moral: The court provided its own recommendation: “We suggest that the
Legislature look seriously at the complicated and overlapping trial
court jurisdictional requirements in this state and enact reforms to
make jurisdictional requirements uniform and understandable.” Hailey at
82.