Jarvis v. Feild
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 10074
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- guardianship appointed 2003–2007 for Caroline Feild; Caroline died in Washington 2008; Cameron County court probate proceedings initiated 2008; Frank Feild appointed executor; October 2009 inventory/appraisal valued estate at $363,185.18 after disbursements; Jarvis objected to missing items and valuation; February 23, 2010 final account approved; Jarvis sought equal real-property distribution per will; notices and service via Kantack Alcantara law office; Tennessee property appraised at $108,500; final order distributed equal shares to Frank, John, and Jarvis; Jarvis appealed alleging jurisdiction, incomplete inventory, incorrect valuations, and deviation from will intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction and venue for probating the will | Jarvis contends Cameron County lacked proper venue/jurisdiction | Appellees argue venue proper; Cameron County had subject-matter jurisdiction | Venue/jurisdiction issues resolved in favor of Cameron County court |
| Notice and personal jurisdiction over Jarvis | Jarvis claims lack of notice and defective service | Service via attorney of record was proper; Jarvis received notice | Court had personal jurisdiction; notice sufficient |
| Inventory and appraisal accuracy | Inventory omitted items and valuations were manipulated to reduce Jarvis’s share | Record shows appraisals used; objections not conclusively proven; inventory supported | No reversible error; inventory/appraisals approved |
| Final distribution aligned with Caroline's will | Distribution did not reflect equal shares or Will intent; Tennessee property overvalued | Equal shares distributed; consistent with will; Tennessee property valued at $108,500 | Distribution complied with will; no error in final settlement |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351 (Tex.2004) (duty to ascertain subject-matter jurisdiction regardless of waiver or party argument)
- English v. Cobb, 593 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.1979) (estate proceedings and incident matters governed by probate code)
- Reliant Energy, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 102 S.W.3d 868 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (venue vs. jurisdiction distinctions in probate matters)
- Furst v. Smith, 176 S.W.3d 864 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (service of process and personal jurisdiction in probate)
- Coronado v. Norman, 111 S.W.3d 841 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2003) (two-element test for personal jurisdiction in probate)
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex.2001) (probate proceedings; final judgments may be severed for appeal in discrete issues)
- Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575 (Tex.2006) (probate appeals; nuance on finality of interlocutory orders)
- Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585 (Tex.2008) (liberal construction of appellate issues to reach merits)