In Re the Guardianship of Bays, 355 S.W.3d 715

Social worker filed suggestion of need for guardianship for Bays, noting she was partially incapacitated and had transferred funds to Okumu.
Guardian ad litem and court investigator were appointed; GAL later filed application for letters of guardianship; attorney ad litem appointed for Bays.
Okumu filed multiple motions contesting guardianship and seeking appointment as guardian; he appeared at the temporary hearing with counsel.
The court granted temporary guardianship of Bays and estate to Bays and Wells Fargo; the court ordered Okumu to place funds into the court’s registry.
Okumu failed to deposit funds; the court found him in contempt and incarcerated him; Okumu appealed raising notice, due process, turnover order, and contempt-jurisdiction issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Notice and jurisdiction for temporary guardianship	Okumu asserts Bays was not personally served.	Wells Fargo argues substituted service per Rule 106 was proper.	Substituted service valid; Bays represented by attorney; no ten-day notice requirement; jurisdiction affirmed.
Due process regarding turnover of funds	Okumu claims lack of notice before turnover order violated due process.	Okumu had opportunity to be heard at hearing and post-hearing proceedings.	Okumu afforded opportunity to be heard; no due process violation.
Validity of turnover order to deposit funds	Turnover order void for lack of supporting pleading/evidence or clarity.	Court has inherent authority to deposit disputed funds into registry where danger of depletion exists.	Turnover order supported by evidence; proper exercise of court’s inherent authority.
Appellate jurisdiction over contempt findings	Okumu challenges contempt findings as part of the guardianship order.	Contempt rulings are not appealable and require original proceeding.	No appellate jurisdiction; issues dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Grannis v. Ordean, 234 S. Ct. 385 (Supreme Court 1914) (fundamental due-process requirement includes opportunity to be heard)
Ex parte Johnson, 654 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. 1983) (notice and hearing not required before turnover in absence statutory requirement)
Castilleja v. Camero, 414 S.W.2d 431 (Tex. 1967) (court may order funds to registry when funds are in danger of depletion)
Costley, 868 S.W.2d 298 (Tex. 1993) (substituted service permitted only after failure of methods proving actual notice)
Endicott-Johnson Corp. v. Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 266 U.S. 285 (1904) (post-judgment, no further notice required to collect on judgments)
Ortiz v. Gutierrez, 792 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1989) (personal service not always mandatory in guardianship setting)
In re Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (contempt proceedings not appealable; subject to original proceeding)