Frost Nat’l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. 2010).

Intestate Succession

Non-Marital Children

 

Alleged Heir brought suit to be declared an heir of the testator who had died over 40 years earlier with a will leaving his entire estate to his wife and whose estate was closed in 1952. She hoped that by setting aside a 1949 judgment determining that none of the testator’s estate passed by intestacy, she could claim an intestate share of this property. Alleged Heir claimed that she did not bring the action in a timely manner, that is, within the four year residual limitations period provided in Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.051, because she was unaware of her possible status as an heir until recently.

The Texas Supreme Court held that the discovery rule does not apply to inheritance or heirship claims by non-marital children or to bill of review claims to set aside previous probate judgments. This holding is consistent with the court’s prior decision in Little v. Smith, 643 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. 1997), which rejected the discovery rule for heirship claims by adoptees. As in Little, the court determined that the strong public interest in according finality to probate proceedings prevailed over the possible claim of the potential heir.

Moral: The discovery rule is not applicable to heirship claims by non-marital children as well as adoptees. Accordingly, a person with questionable parentage who is interested in making inheritance claims must determine the identity of his or her parents in a timely manner and then monitor the parent so that he or she may bring a timely claim after the parent dies.

 

Estate Administration

Jurisdiction

 

Alleged Heir brought suit in both district court and statutory probate court in her attempt to be declared an heir of the testator who had died over 40 years earlier and whose estate was closed in 1952. She hoped that by setting aside a 1949 judgment determining that none of the testator’s estate passed by intestacy, she could claim an intestate share of this property. The district court granted summary judgment against Alleged Heir. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and must abate its proceedings until the probate court resolved the heirship issue.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed. The court held that Alleged Heir’s direct attack on a previous judgment vested the district court with subject matter jurisdiction. The district court was entitled to take as true her heirship allegation which then would be sufficient to give her standing. The court explained that standing existed even though the alleged relationship may not be true and was subject to rebuttal on the merits.

The court also held that Probate Code § 48(a) does not authorize a probate court to exercise jurisdiction over heirship claims when an estate has been closed for decades and the decedent died testate.

Moral: If a contested probate matter is transferred to a district court by a county court judge in a county without a statutory court exercising probate jurisdiction or a statutory probate court, the district court has jurisdiction over a bill of review involving any decision subsequently rendered by the district court.



Back