Tarris L. Woods v. Sandra T. Kenner and Charles E. Twymon, Jr.
01-14-01029-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 17, 2015Background
- Appellees filed (July 30, 2014) an application to correct error in a prior judgment declaring heirship and concurrently sought to probate a copy of the decedent’s will, i.e., a statutory bill of review under former Tex. Probate Code §31 / Tex. Estates Code §55.251.
- The probate-court hearing was set for October 27, 2014.
- Appellant Woods filed special exceptions late (October 23, 2014) and sought to have them heard at the start of the October 27 hearing, after applicable pretrial/amendment deadlines had passed.
- The probate court denied Woods’s special exceptions, enforced its pretrial schedule, and granted the statutory bill of review, setting aside the heirship judgment because the decedent did not die intestate and a will was proved.
- Woods appealed, arguing denial of his special exceptions, that appellees failed to meet bill-of-review standards (alleging equitable-bill elements required), and that the court effectively removed an executor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Woods) | Defendant's Argument (Appellees) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of special exceptions | Exceptions should have been sustained; appellees’ bill-of-review inadequate | Exceptions were untimely and waived; court properly enforced its scheduling/order | Denial was proper: Woods waived by not timely filing/hearing; court may enforce pretrial schedule |
| Timeliness / pretrial scheduling power | Court may not alter rules; exceptions should be considered despite schedule | Trial court may set/alter deadlines by scheduling order; parties must obtain hearings timely | Court has broad docket-management power; scheduling orders that change procedural deadlines are enforceable |
| Standard for statutory bill of review (Tex. Estates Code §55.251 / former §31) | Appellees needed to prove fraud/accident/mistake (equitable-bill standards) | Statutory bill requires proof of substantial error in judgment and filing within two years; equitable-bill elements not required | Statutory bill-of-review standard applies: timely filing + showing substantial error; equitable-bill requirements are inapplicable |
| Removal of executor | Appellant contends relief effectively removed executor and required removal standards | Trial court did not remove any personal representative; it vacated the heirship judgment so appointment basis fell away | No executor removal occurred; court set aside heirship judgment based on will probate (statutory bill of review) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. Housing Auth. of City of El Paso, 926 S.W.2d 316 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996) (party must obtain hearing to present special exceptions and secure ruling)
- Parker v. Barfield, 206 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. 2006) (when special exceptions are sustained for curable defects, pleader must be allowed opportunity to amend)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (trial court has inherent power to manage docket and control case disposition)
- Clanton v. Clark, 639 S.W.2d 929 (Tex. 1982) (trial court has wide discretion in docket management; appellate interference requires clear abuse)
- Estate of J. W. Tyner, 292 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2009) (failure to obtain a hearing on special exceptions before adverse ruling waives complaint)
- Buck v. Estate of Buck, 291 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2009) (statutory bills of review are governed by their own statutory standard and need not meet equitable-bill requirements)
- In re Estate of Rogers, 322 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010) (pleading to set aside heirship to probate a written will is a form of statutory bill of review)