Cora Sue Sanchez, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Anthony Tony Sanchez, Jennifer Pasowicz, and Julie Marie Sanchez v. Roberts Truck Center of Texas, LLC and Roberts Truck Center Holding Company, LLC
11-19-00392-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 28, 2021Background
- Appellants (Cora Sue Sanchez, individually and as representative of Anthony Sanchez’s estate, and two daughters) sued Roberts Truck Center in the Ector County Court at Law for wrongful death, asserting the claim was incident to probate so the county court sitting in probate had jurisdiction.
- Defendants filed a plea to the jurisdiction; the trial court denied it and later granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the merits (May 2, 2017).
- Appellants appealed; the Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed and the Texas Supreme Court denied review.
- Over two years later appellants filed a bill of review arguing the original judgment was void because the county court at law lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on the bill of review (Nov. 18, 2019).
- On appeal the Eleventh Court of Appeals held the Ector County Court at Law sitting in probate lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over wrongful death/survival claims in that county, concluded the original judgment was void, and vacated the trial court’s May 2, 2017 take‑nothing summary judgment; the appellate judgment was reversed and rendered to vacate the void judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a county court at law sitting in probate has subject‑matter jurisdiction over wrongful death/survival claims brought incident to probate | Sanchez: wrongful death claims are incident to probate so the county court at law sitting in probate had jurisdiction | Roberts: wrongful death/survival claims exceed the limited probate jurisdiction of a county court at law; such jurisdiction is given to statutory probate courts and district courts | Court: Ector County Court at Law sitting in probate lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction; original judgment was void and is vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard of review for subject‑matter jurisdiction questions)
- PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012) (judgment rendered without subject‑matter jurisdiction is void)
- Dowell v. Quiroz, 462 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi‑Edinburg 2015) (distinguishes jurisdiction of statutory probate courts from county courts at law sitting in probate)
- Palmer v. Coble Wall Tr. Co., 851 S.W.2d 178 (Tex. 1992) (controlling‑issue test for wrongful death/survival actions relative to probate jurisdiction)
- Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver)
- In re Crawford & Co., 458 S.W.3d 920 (Tex. 2015) (waiver, estoppel, or judicial admission cannot create subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- Glunz v. Hernandez, 908 S.W.2d 253 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995) (collateral attacks may set aside void judgments when the record shows lack of jurisdiction)