Lopez-Franco v. Hernandez, 351 S.W.3d 387 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, pet. denied).
The appellate court held that a parent of a minor child had standing and capacity to represent the child’s estate even though the parent was not appointed as the child’s personal representative. The court explained that under Shepherd v. Ledford, 962 S.W.2d 28 (Tex. 1998), an heir may appear as a representative of a decedent’s estate if the heir proves that no administration of the decedent’s estate is pending or necessary. The court determined that the fact that this case involved life insurance proceeds rather than a survival action as in Shepherd was irrelevant. Likewise, it did not matter that the parent paid for the child’s funeral. The payment did not create a debt of the estate because there was no promise to repay. The court stressed that Probate Code § 178(b) does not authorize an administration unless it is necessary.
Moral: An heir may represent the estate of an intestate decedent if no administration is necessary or pending.
The insured’s life insurance policy listed three beneficiaries. The beneficiary listed first on the list claimed all of the proceeds while the other two beneficiaries asserted they were each entitled to one-third of the proceeds. The top-listed beneficiary argued that the policy was ambiguous as a matter of law because of the different interpretations. The court rejected this argument finding that the policy was unambiguous. The policy listed three primary beneficiaries which means that each is entitled to one-third of the proceeds. The policy stated that all surviving beneficiaries of the same class share equally. The fact that one part of the beneficiary designation was somewhat sloppily completed did not make the policy ambiguous.
Moral: To prevent litigation, beneficiary designations should be extremely clear and neatly written.
Back