in the Estate of Alberto Simo A/K/A Albert Simo
13-16-00211-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Albert and Narcy Simo were married; Albert died in 2010. Albert’s will left his entire estate to Narcy.
- In 2008 Albert and Narcy created the "George A. Simo Trust," transferring their assets to the trust with George as sole trustee.
- In 2009 George was appointed guardian of Albert and Narcy; later George was removed as Narcy’s guardian of the estate.
- A guardianship proceeding later declared the trust void and ordered the trust res to revert to Albert’s and Narcy’s estates.
- Annabell Alegria (an attorney) was appointed Narcy’s guardian ad litem and filed to admit Albert’s will as a muniment of title; Oscar Simo Jr. (Albert’s son) challenged standing, capacity, and the statute of limitations.
- The trial court admitted the will as a muniment of title; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue to probate on behalf of incapacitated Narcy | Alegria (proponent) argued Narcy has a justiciable interest as devisee and Alegria, as Narcy’s representative, could pursue probate | Oscar argued Alegria lacked standing to bring suit for Narcy | Court: Narcy, as incapacitated devisee, had a justiciable interest; a representative may sue for her — standing affirmed |
| Statute of limitations to probate (four‑year rule) | Oscar argued probate was time‑barred (application filed >4 years after death) | Alegria argued she was not in default because parties reasonably believed probate unnecessary while assets were in trust and she filed promptly after trust was set aside | Court: Proponent produced evidence excusing delay (not aware probate was necessary while trust existed); factual question resolved for proponent — limitation defense rejected |
| Capacity to file on behalf of Narcy (who had a guardian previously) | Oscar argued only guardian of the estate (George) or an appointed receiver could bring suit; Alegria lacked authority | Alegria testified George had been removed as guardian of the estate and no receiver was appointed when she filed | Court: Trial court could credit Alegria’s testimony that George had been removed and no receiver existed; Alegria had capacity to file — capacity challenge rejected |
| Procedural propriety of admitting will as muniment of title | Oscar contended procedural defects (standing, capacity, statute) barred admission | Alegria relied on representative status and excuse for delay; court considered evidence and admitted will | Court: Affirmed admission of will as muniment of title on all contested grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Rupert v. McCurdy, 141 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (standing review standards)
- Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2005) (capacity and representation for minors/incompetents)
- In re Estate of Allen, 407 S.W.3d 335 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2013) (proponent not in default may probate after 4‑year limit)
- Chovanec v. Chovanec, 881 S.W.2d 135 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (lack of awareness of need to probate can excuse delay)
- Kamoos v. Woodward, 570 S.W.2d 6 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1978) (probate delay excused where proponent reasonably believed probate unnecessary)
- In re Archer, 203 S.W.3d 16 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006) (guardian of estate ordinarily brings suit on ward’s behalf)