Schuchmann v. Schuchmann, 193 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied).
While divorce litigation was pending in a district court, Husband
sued Wife in a statutory probate court with regard to inter vivos trusts
Husband’s father had created naming Husband as a beneficiary. This
triggered a variety of orders and settlement agreements resulting in a
convoluted set of events which eventually lead to Wife filing a motion
in probate court to enforce a settlement agreement and to transfer
Husband’s post-divorce action to the probate court. Despite Husband’s
argument that the probate court lacked jurisdiction, the probate court
ordered the post-divorce action transferred from the district court.
Husband appealed.
The appellate court reversed holding that the probate court lacked
jurisdiction to transfer the post-divorce action. The court explained
that the post-divorce action dealt with assets unrelated to the trusts
at issue in the probate court litigation. The court examined Probate
Code § 5 and found no basis to give the probate court jurisdiction. The
suit did not involve (1) an inter vivos trust (§ 5(e)), (2) a matter
appertaining or incident to the estate of a deceased person (§ 5(h)), or
(3) a set of facts which would trigger the probate court’s pendant and
ancillary jurisdiction which exists when there is a close relationship
between non-probate claims and the matter pending in the probate court
so that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction would aid in the efficient
administration of a matter pending in probate court (§ 5(i)).
Accordingly, the court ordered the probate court to transfer the case
back to the district court.
Moral: Appellate courts appear unwilling to expand the jurisdiction of
statutory probate courts to situations which have a tenuous, if any,
connection to probate or trust matters.