in Re Jeanette B. Davidson, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Gary L. Davidson
12-15-00058-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 3, 2015Background
- Relators (Jeanette B. Davidson, individually and as independent executor of Gary L. Davidson's estate) sought mandamus after the trial court overruled their motion to transfer venue of suits filed by Haynes (executor for Stone Haynes’ estate).
- Haynes filed a suit in Anderson County asserting Relators owed the decedent money on a note; Relators filed counterclaims (including DTPA damages) and moved to transfer venue to San Augustine County.
- Administration of the estate and related probate proceedings were pending; Relators contend the probate administration and the note are properly venued in San Augustine County, not Anderson County.
- Relators argue they have standing as "interested persons" and creditors because they assert liquidated claims against the estate and face suits brought by the executor.
- Haynes contends Relators lack standing to challenge probate venue and that any venue challenge is foreclosed because no appeal was taken from the order admitting the will to probate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Haynes) | Defendant's Argument (Relators) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge probate venue | Relators lack standing to object to venue of the probate proceeding | Relators are "interested persons"/creditors because they were sued by executor and asserted counterclaims; thus they have pecuniary interest | Relators have standing where they assert liquidated claims against the estate and litigation affects their pecuniary interests |
| Proper venue for collection suit and related probate matters | Venue is proper in Anderson County (executor filed there) and prior probate order is binding | Venue should be San Augustine County because decedent’s domicile, parties, evidence, property, and contract performance are centered there; appointment in Anderson was an attempt to manufacture venue | Venue may be fixed by probate priority; venue objections can prevail where probate was filed in a county lacking priority and the administration creates an improper forum-shopping outcome |
| Whether failure to appeal the probate-admission order precludes mandamus relief on venue | Haynes: lack of appeal from probate admission conclusively establishes venue/supports denial of mandamus | Relators: probate orders admitting wills are not the final decree for venue purposes; venue challenges may be raised before final decree/closing of estate | Probate admission is not necessarily a final, appealable determination for venue purposes; venue challenges can be raised pre-close of estate |
| Availability of mandamus vs. appeal for interlocutory probate venue determinations | Haynes: remedies limited to appeal; mandamus inappropriate | Relators: mandamus is proper to correct trial court's failure to transfer where statutory venue priority is implicated | Mandamus can be appropriate to compel transfer of probate when court lacks venue priority and interlocutory appeal is not the exclusive remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- De Avala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. 2006) (probate proceedings can produce multiple final judgments on discrete issues for appeal purposes)
- Fernandez v. Bustamante, 305 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (venue orders in probate are not necessarily final, appealable orders; court retains authority to transfer before final decree)
- In re Graham, 251 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. App. — Austin 2008) (for mandatory probate venue provisions, the order admitting a will is not the final decree; estate not closed until distribution and debts resolved)
- In re Ramsey, 28 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2000) (definition of "interested persons" includes those with pecuniary interests affected by probate)
- Jarvis v. Field, 327 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2010) (waiver of venue objection where procedure under Rule 120a not followed)
- Olson v. Tromba, 615 S.W.2d 875 (Tex. Civ. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1981) (appointment of administrator to manufacture venue in an otherwise improper county should be disregarded)
- In re Hudson, 325 S.W.3d 811 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2010) (mandamus is not available where the correct remedy is appeal on certain trial rulings; distinguishes venue contexts)