Jerry Valdez v. Bruce Robertson, Jr.
01-14-00563-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 20, 2015Background
- Martha Jane Valdez died in 2008 at age 98, leaving 12 children as potential heirs.
- Jerry Valdez filed a second amended application to probate Martha Jane Valdez's Feb. 22, 1997 Will and to be Independent Executor.
- Dorothy H. Mello challenged the Will contest; Bruce Robertson, JR. supported the contest.
- Robertson obtained a standing ruling based on a guardianship judgment against Martha Jane's estate; this judgment was later appealed and remanded.
- Valdez was ordered to join all heirs as parties under court orders; Valdez argued joinder was unnecessary under the Probate Code, and the trial court dismissed the probate application in 2014.
- The appeal challenges the trial court’s dismissal and seeks admission of the 1997 Will into probate and invalidates Robertson’s standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 39 governs probate dismissal vs. Probate Code §33 | Valdez argues §33 controls; joinder not required. | Robertson argues Rule 39 governs joinder. | Rule 39 does not control; §33 governs interpleader; dismissal improper. |
| Robertson's standing to contest the will | Valdez argues Robertson is not an interested party. | Robertson relies on a guardianship judgment as standing. | Robertson lacks standing to contest the will. |
| Admission of the 1997 Will into probate under Probate Code §59 | Will is self-proving and unchallenged; court should admit. | There was a contest and standing issues; admission questionable. | Will should be admitted; no valid contest by proper contestants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wojcik v. Wesolick, 97 S.W.3d 335 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (probate codes trump Rule 39 where will contests are concerned)
- Cooper v. Texas Gulf Indus., 513 S.W.2d 200 (Tex. 1947) (court cannot dismiss without proper basis; general rule on joinder)
- Cox v. Johnson, 638 S.W.2d 867 (Tex. 1982) (joinder and notice principles in probate matters)
- Longoria v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 255 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (treats probate proceedings as governed by Probate Code)
- Laros v. Hartman, 260 S.W.2d 592 (Tex. 1953) (definition of interested persons in estate)
- Pulte v. Gregory, 629 S.W.2d 919 (Tex. 1982) (standards for will contest and procedural posture)
- In re Estate of Wilson, 252 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (probate appellate review standards)
- Bank of Tex. v. Mexia, 135 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (venue and probate procedures)
- Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operators, Inc., 372 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. 2012) (precedent binding on appellate panels)
- Triestman v. Kilgore, 838 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. 1992) (probate procedures and self-proving wills discussed)