Guardianship of the Person & Estate of Jordan
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5766
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Eddy Jordan sought appointment as permanent guardian of Fannie G. Jordan's person and estate; Trudie Jordan was appointed guardian of the person initially.
- The trial court entered an agreed guardianship order: Eddy as guardian of the estate, Trudie as guardian of the person, with Fannie deemed incapacitated by Alzheimer’s and the guardianship term indefinite.
- Trudie later effectively resigned as guardian of the person, and Eddy was appointed successor guardian of the person.
- Trudie appealed three orders: the agreed guardianship order, an order Marshaling Assets of the estate, and the order appointing Eddy as successor guardian of the person; the appellate panel consolidated the appeals.
- The court affirmed the guardianship appointment orders, dismissed the marshaling-assets appeal as non-final, and denied challenges to standing, service, and jurisdiction largely based on consent and statutory interpretation; subject-matter jurisdiction and due-process concerns were resolved in favor of the court's actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the agreed guardianship order under Prob. Code §§ 684-685 | Trudie argues the order lacked the required evidentiary showings and standing. | Eddy/Trudie dispute — the agreement, record, and consent suffice under statutes. | The order is valid; the court had authority to sign given the agreement and statutory framework. |
| Whether service and jurisdiction over Fannie were proper | Trudie asserts lack of proper personal service on Fannie1, challenging jurisdiction. | Court had jurisdiction; Trudie accepted service for Fannie and did not oppose personal service; failure to challenge does not void jurisdiction. | Court had personal jurisdiction; service issues waived and cannot nullify the order. |
| Appealability of the marshaling assets order | The marshal of assets order affects ownership and is final; thus appealable. | The order is not a final, appealable ruling since ownership and future determinations are unresolved. | Appeal dismissed for lack of finality. |
| Appointment of Eddy as successor guardian of the person | Trudie argues insufficient notice and Eddy disqualified; pending recusal matter. | Eddy provided evidence of necessity and Trudie abandoned care; statutory requirements met; recusal not applicable. | The appointment of Eddy as successor guardian of the person affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (limits on treating statutory noncompliance as automatic lack of jurisdiction; final judgments not void for good-faith errors of law)
- City of DeSoto, Tex. v. White, 288 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2009) (mandatory jurisdictional prerequisites presumed non-jurisdictional unless clearly legislative intent to the contrary)
- Igal v. Brightstar Info. Tech. Grp., Inc., 250 S.W.3d 78 (Tex. 2008) (reaffirms approach to subject-matter jurisdiction and finality concerns)
- Ortiz v. Gutierrez, 792 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1989, writ dism'd) (compliance with guardianship statute regarded as essential precondition to valid appointment)
- Erickson (In the Guardianship of Erickson), 208 S.W.3d 737 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2006) (guardianship proceedings; strict service noted in jurisdictional context)