in the Estate of Manuel Arizola, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 4992

Pedrito Arizola (Pedro Sr.) is Manuel Arizola’s father and V.A.’s biological father; V.A.’s parental rights were terminated before the fatal crash that killed Manuel and Romen Arizola and injured V.A.
On July 14, 2010 Rogelio Arizola filed for letters of administration of Manuel’s estate in Webb County; Pedro Sr. was not listed as an heir in the application; Manuel’s mother signed a renunciation.
On July 26, 2010 the Webb County court appointed Rogelio as administrator of Manuel’s estate and ratified a July 7, 2010 contingent-fee employment contract for lawyers representing the estates.
Manuel’s estate, Romen’s estate, and V.A. settled with Tutle & Tutle in a mediation; Pedro Sr. did not settle his own wrongful-death claim; La Salle County District Court later entered a final judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the estates’ and ward’s claims.
Dora Sandoval was later appointed administratrix of Romen’s estate in Webb County; Rogelio and Dora sought ratification of the settlement in Webb County after La Salle County’s judgment.
Pedro Sr. challenged various Webb County orders (appointment, discovery, removal, disqualification, employment contract) and sought to prevent ratification of the settlement; the Webb County court denied some motions and granted ratification, leading to this appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the appointment orders final/appealable	Pedro Sr. challenges Rogelio/Dora appointments as improper and seeks appellate review.	Appointments properly established representation; any appealability depends on finality standards.	Appointments affirmed; appellate jurisdiction proper.
Did Rogelio’s failure to list Pedro Sr. as heir affect the appointment	Pedro Sr. argues lack of heir listing undermines validity of appointment.	Failure to list heir did not harm Pedro Sr.’s rights to challenge settlement or remedies.	No reversible error; issue overruled.
Was the denial of Balmer’s disqualification erroneous	Balmer’s dual role as guardian/witness could prejudice estates; should be disqualified.	No demonstrated essential-fact necessity; no abuse of discretion.	No abuse; disqualification denied.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion denying discovery about the settlement	Discovery needed to determine settlement terms and best-interest considerations.	Administrators controlled settlement; heir lacks entitlement to discovery beyond scope.	Discovery denial reversed; remand for full discovery on settlement.
Was there evidentiary error in ratifying the settlement without a hearing	Entitlement to an evidentiary hearing before ratification under Probate Code §10.	Ratification appropriate; prior notice adequate; hearing not required.	Remand for an evidentiary hearing; ratification orders reversed.

Catlett v. Catlett, 630 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1982) (unauthorized compromise voidable, not void; subsequent ratification cures)
Brittingham– Sada de Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. 2006) (probate interlocutory vs final judgments; phase finality standard)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (clear and convincing standard; evidentiary review framework)
In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. 1998) (scope of discovery; party entitled to truth-seeking discovery)
In re Sanders, 153 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. 2004) (attorney-witness conflict and abuse-of-discretion standard)