Valdez v. Hollenbeck, 465 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2015).
Heirs sought to reopen an estate administration by
using a bill of review ten years after it was closed and more than three
years after learning that a probate court clerk had stolen over $500,000
from the estate. The probate court denied a statutory bill of review
because two years had past since the date of closing but granted the
heirs’ request for an equitable bill of review by applying the longer
four year period and the discovery rule. The heirs then litigated their
claims and prevailed against the administrator and surety both at the
trial and appellate levels.
The Supreme Court of Texas reversed holding that
the time period to bring a bill of review had elapsed. The heirs’
ability to bring a bill of review was governed by the Probate Code’s
(now Estates Code § 55.251) two year period. In effect, the Code’s time
period abrogated the equitable bill of review in a probate context.
Accordingly, the heir’s action was untimely regardless of whether
limitations was tolled until they discovered the actions of the evil
probate clerk. Note that although the court did not approve of tolling
based on the discovery rule, it left open the issue of whether tolling
should be allowed when violations of fiduciary duties and fraudulent
concealment are at issue.
Moral: In the probate context, bills of
review are statutorily based, not based on equity. Thus, the statutory
two-year period applies. The Texas Supreme Court indicated its
unwillingness to approve a discovery rule generally but left open the
possibility that a discovery rule might be acceptable if the claim is
based on a breach of fiduciary duty coupled with fraudulent concealment
of that breach.