Daniel T. Brashear v. Joy A. Dorai, 14-19-00194-CV

Decedent Anne Moreland died March 11, 2018. A Maryland resident, Daniel T. Brashear (not related to Moreland) filed a probate application and sought appointment as independent executor based on a purported will dated August 15, 2015.
Joy A. Dorai (Moreland’s biological daughter) filed a will contest and objection to Brashear’s appointment, alleging the 2015 will was invalid and that Brashear was a convicted felon and otherwise unsuitable to serve.
Brashear responded that Joy lacked standing to contest the will or object to his appointment because the purported will disinherited her and she had not been adjudicated an heir.
At the summary judgment hearing Brashear admitted he had been convicted (first-degree murder). The probate court granted Joy’s motion for partial summary judgment, disqualifying Brashear as executor because he was a convicted felon and “highly unsuitable.”
Brashear appealed, raising (1) lack of standing by Joy, (2) due process violations for allegedly not having his standing evidence considered, and (3) abuse of discretion in denying his motion to reconsider; the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Joy had standing to object to Brashear's appointment as executor	Brashear: Joy lacks standing because the purported will disinherited her and she has not been declared an heir	Joy: As a biological daughter, she would be an heir if the will is set aside and thus has a pecuniary interest in the estate	Court: Joy has standing — she would be an heir if the will is invalid, so she is an "interested person" under the Estates Code
Whether the trial court violated Brashear's due process rights by refusing to consider his standing challenge and evidence	Brashear: Court refused to admit/consider his pleadings/evidence on Joy's standing, denying meaningful hearing	Joy: Court considered pleadings, evidence, and oral argument at the hearing	Court: No due process violation — record shows Brashear's filings and oral arguments were considered; any omission to expressly rule on standing was harmless because standing can be raised on appeal
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Brashear's motion to reconsider the summary judgment	Brashear: Trial court should have reheard or reconsidered summary judgment	Joy: No new evidence or arguments were offered; court need not revisit adjudicated issues	Court: No abuse of discretion — Brashear presented no new evidence or grounds; denial of reconsideration was proper

Tex. Ass'n. of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction and cannot be waived)
Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (standing reviewed de novo)
Ferreira v. Butler, 575 S.W.3d 331 (Tex. 2019) (interest for standing must be pecuniary and affected by the proceeding)
Jones v. LaFargue, 758 S.W.2d 320 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988) (potential heirs qualify as interested persons with standing to contest probate)
Evans v. Allen, 358 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (distinguishing interest in the estate from interest in the will itself)
Eastland v. Eastland, 273 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (order disqualifying executor is appealable)
Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Ademaj, 243 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. App.) (summary judgment standard on appeal)
Continental Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1996) (standing is not presumed and may be raised on appeal)
Bridgestone Lakes Cmty. Improvement Assoc. v. Bridgestone Lakes Dev. Co., 489 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (trial court not required to reconsider issues already adjudicated by summary judgment)
In re G.X.H., 584 S.W.3d 543 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019) (due process requires notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)