in Re Darla Lexington O'Quinn
355 S.W.3d 857
Tex. App.2011Background
- Relator seeks mandamus to overturn denial of motion in limine, plea to jurisdiction, and motion to strike; Foundation intervened seeking declarations regarding decedent’s marriage, gifts, and sole residual beneficiary status under will; Executor filed declaratory judgment action naming Darla, Foundation, and Hartford; Foundation's intervention originally did not name Darla as a party; probate court transferred/s consolidated Darla’s suit with executor and Foundation declaratory actions; Darla contends Foundation lacks standing and capacity to participate; trial court denied the motions; mandamus filed.
- Decedent John M. O’Quinn executed a self-proving will leaving all personal effects and residue to the Foundation and establishing a Trust benefiting the Foundation; O’Quinn died in 2009; probate court appointed an independent executor; Will provided Foundation as sole beneficiary of assets and the Trust after dissolution.
- Foundation intervened asserting lack of marriage and gifts by O’Quinn to Darla and sought declarations that would reduce the estate passing to Foundation.
- Darla sued the Executor for community property and the return of property; Foundation amended its petition in intervention naming Darla as a defendant, seeking similar declarations.
- Probate court eventually transferred Darla’s lawsuit to the probate court and consolidated with the Executor’s suit and Foundation’s petition; Darla moved to strike and for lack of standing; court denied all motions.
- This mandamus proceeding followed to challenge the denial of the Foundation’s intervention and related motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foundation has a justiciable interest to intervene | Darla: Foundation lacks standing; only Executor may seek declaratory relief for estate matters. | Foundation: as devisee, it has a right to seek declarations under 37.005(3) and its interests would be affected. | Foundation has a justiciable interest; intervention proper. |
| Whether Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 37.005(3) authorizes such declaratory relief | Darla: 37.005(3) does not authorize declarations about marriage or gifts by the decedent to a non-spouse. | Foundation: 37.005(3) permits a devisee to seek any question arising in administration, including status and ownership. | Statutory text allows devisee to seek declarations; supports Foundation’s claims. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motions | Darla: court should strike Foundation’s petition and dismiss for lack of standing. | Foundation: no abuse; standing and capacity exist. | No abuse; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Union Carbide Corp., 273 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. 2008) (intervention standards; capacity to intervene; per curiam)
- Di Portanova v. Monroe, 229 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (requires a justiciable controversy and that declaration resolve the controversy)
- In re Estate of Bean, 120 S.W.3d 914 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (devisees may seek declarations under 37.005(3))
- Lieber v. Mercantile Nat’l Bank at Dallas, 331 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. 1960) (declarations attack on will; beneficiaries may be proper parties)
- Wilder v. Mossler, 583 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1979) (claims against estate often relate to will/estate administration)
- Nowlin v. Frost Nat’l Bank, 908 S.W.2d 283 (Tex. App.—Houst. [1st Dist.] 1995) (title vests in devisees immediately; executors hold legal title during administration)
- Texas Ass’n of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (UDJA is procedural; requires justiciable controversy and resolution of dispute)