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
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- 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.
Issues
| 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. |
Key Cases Cited
- 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)