Jennifer Pine and Robin Pine Sims v. Catherine deBlieux, Individually and as Successor Administrator of the Estate of Robert Edward Pine, 360 S.W.3d 45

Robert Pine died intestate on March 15, 2008, leaving four children: Jennifer Pine, Robin Pine-Sims, Mark Pine, and deBlieux.
Initially, all three sisters agreed to Mark’s appointment as Independent Administrator without bond on February 25, 2009.
On June 5, 2009, deBlieux filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment claiming certain assets of the decedent are hers individually, including survivorship rights in a CD and a Trust.
Spring 2010, Mark’s sisters moved to remove him for fiduciary breaches and embezzlement; Mark offered to resign, subject to court approval.
On March 10, 2010, deBlieux sought appointment as Successor Administrator; Jennifer and Robin opposed due to claimed conflicts of interest.
Following an April 30, 2010 hearing, the trial court appointed deBlieux as Successor Administrator with a $500,000 bond, which Jennifer and Robin appealed and moved to reconsider.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether deBlieux’s ownership claims render her unsuitable under §78(e).	Pine arguments present a real conflict of interest that disqualifies deBlieux as administrator.	DeBlieux contends conflict does not automatically preclude appointment; Kappus governs removal, not initial appointment.	Yes; deBlieux’ ownership claims render her unsuitable; appointment was abuse of discretion.
Whether Kappus v. Kappus controls the outcome of appointing an administrator with a potential conflict.	Kappus supports removal for conflicts; conflicts defeat suitability at appointment.	Kappus does not apply to initial appointment in absence of malfeasance under removal framework.	Kappus not controlling for initial appointment; still, conflict here renders unsuitability.
What standard governs unsuitability versus removal in probate administration.	Unsuitability pre-appointment should bar appointment when asset claims conflict with estate interests.	Unsuitability is different from removal grounds under §149C; distinction matters for applying Kappus.	Unsuitability analysis applicable; conflict-based unsuitability supported.

Boyles v. Gresham, 309 S.W.2d 50 (Tex. 1958) (not unsuitable for asserting a good-faith claim against the estate when named in a will)
Bays v. Jordan, 622 S.W.2d 148 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1981) (conflict when claimant seeks estate assets as own can render unsuitability)
Haynes v. Clanton, 257 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1953) (conflicting interests of administrator and estate can show unsuitability)
Hitt v. Dumitrov, 598 S.W.2d 355 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1980) (adverse claims by administrator to insurance proceeds affecting estate)
Ayala v. Martinez, 883 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1994) (surviving spouse’ conflict can impact suitability in estate administration)
Kappus v. Kappus, 284 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. 2009) (removal standards under §149C differ from pre-appointment unsuitability; conflict may not mandatorily remove)
Kay v. Sandler, 704 S.W.2d 430 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985) (trial court discretion in determining suitability of administrator)
Dean v. Getz, 970 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1998) (limits on reviewing trial court discretion in appointment of administrator)
Olguin v. Jungman, 931 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996) (considerations of suitability in probate administration)
Boyles v. Gresham, 309 S.W.2d 50 (Tex. 1958) (supra)