in the Guardianship of Ruby Peterson, 01-15-00586-CV

Background

Siblings (Mackey, Don, Lonny, Tonya) were involved in a guardianship proceeding concerning their mother, Ruby Peterson (the proposed ward). Carol Manley and David Peterson were adverse parties and co-trustees in related trust disputes.
Parties mediated multiple disputes (guardianship, tort claims, trustee/estate matters) and executed a written, prominently‑stated, "binding, non‑revocable" mediated settlement agreement under Tex. Est. Code §1055.151, subject to probate court approval.
On November 7, 2014 the probate court (via hearing) approved and authorized the guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem to execute and ratify the settlement as in the proposed ward’s best interest. Ad litems executed the agreement thereafter.
The proposed ward, Ruby Peterson, died on January 11, 2015 (after the court approved the settlement but before final judgment was entered).
The probate court later entered a final judgment approving the mediated settlement (May 12, 2015). Appellants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to the ward’s death; the motion was denied. Appellees sued for breach of the settlement. Appellants appealed the final judgment and two sanctions orders against their counsel, Candice Schwager.
The probate court had also imposed monetary sanctions against Schwager under Tex. R. Civ. P. 215/Tx. Disciplinary Rule 3.07 and under Chapter 10 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code for extrajudicial, prejudicial public statements and other misconduct.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the proposed ward's death rendered the mediated, statutory "binding, non‑revocable" guardianship settlement void or unenforceable	Appellants: death moots the settlement and deprives court of power to enter judgment	Appellees: settlement complied with Tex. Est. Code §1055.151, was approved/ratified by court before death and remains binding and enforceable	Court upheld that the statutory mediated settlement, approved pre‑death, remains valid and enforceable; death does not void it
Whether the probate court lost jurisdiction after the proposed ward’s death to enter final judgment on the settlement and related matters	Appellants: probate court lacked jurisdiction post‑death	Appellees: Estates Code grants probate courts jurisdiction over "matters related to a guardianship proceeding," and certain guardianship matters survive death; court retained pendent/ancillary jurisdiction	Court held probate court retained jurisdiction to enter final judgment and resolve related claims after ward’s death
Whether the probate court abused discretion in imposing sanctions against appellants’ lawyer under Rule 3.07 and Ch. 10	Appellants: sanctions were improper/overbroad	Appellees: attorney made extrajudicial public statements and postings likely to prejudice proceedings, violating Rule 3.07 and relevant authority; sanctions within discretion	Court found sanctions proper; even if reviewable, appellants lack standing to challenge sanctions imposed solely on their counsel and failed to preserve error
Whether appellants preserved appellate complaints about approval/terminology and sanctions	Appellants: (raised on appeal)	Appellees: appellants failed to timely object at trial on record and omitted required materials from appellate filings	Court treated some objections as unpreserved/harmless and noted waiver / standing deficiencies regarding the sanctions challenge

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001) (mootness and standing require a live controversy at every stage)
Nath v. Tex. Children's Hosp., 446 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2014) (standard of review for sanctions is abuse of discretion)
In re EPIC Holdings, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (appellate review limits for discretionary trial rulings)
Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (discussing abuse of discretion and standards for appellate reversal)
Spiegel v. KLRU Endowment Fund, 228 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007) (family‑code mediated settlement binding and court retains jurisdiction to enter judgment after a party’s death)
Mauldin v. Clement, 428 S.W.3d 247 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (probate/settlement approval context; court need not make express findings beyond statutory compliance)