In re Estate of Trevino, 195 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.).
Under a highly convoluted set of facts and court orders, Attorney for
Executrix obtained a order from a statutory probate court for the
appointment of a receiver to protect his contingency fee interest in a
business constituting estate property he successfully recovered from a
conflicting claimant. Executrix appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. The statutory probate court has
jurisdiction over matters appertaining to or incident to an estate as
well as pendant and ancillary jurisdiction necessary to promote judicial
efficiency and economy. Probate Code § 5. Accordingly, the court had
jurisdiction to appoint a receiver.
Moral: A statutory probate court has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver.
Under a highly convoluted set of facts and court orders, Attorney for
Executrix obtained a order from a statutory probate court for the
appointment of a receiver to protect his contingency fee interest in a
business constituting estate property he successfully recovered from a
conflicting claimant. Executrix appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. First, the court rejected Executrix’s
claim that the appointment of a receiver usurped her authority and
interfered with the independent administration of the estate. The court
noted that the probate court had pendant and ancillary jurisdiction even
if those matters were not appertaining or incident to an estate under
Probate Code § 5(i).
Second, the court determined that the probate court did not abuse its
discretion by appointing a receiver. The court engaged in a detailed
review of the facts which showed that the appointment of a receiver was
justified as a means of resolving years of litigation regarding the
property.
Moral: A receivership may be a useful technique to resolve complex or
extended litigation involving estate property.