William Frank Byerley, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Francis William Byerley v. Carol McCulley, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Winnie Aline Byerley
2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 1282
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Winnie A. Byerley died in 1995; her will (naming daughter Carol McCulley sole beneficiary) was located and presented for probate in 2014.
- The county court admitted Winnie's will as a muniment of title on November 24, 2014.
- William Frank Byerley (Winnie's son and executor of his father’s estate) filed a statutory bill of review ~1 year later seeking to set aside the probate order.
- Byerley argued probate was invalid because (a) the will was probated more than four years after death without proper service on heirs, and (b) McCulley failed to give required service of process.
- McCulley had given notice by posting and argued the 1999 savings clause (applying pre-1999 law to decedents who died before Sept. 1, 1999) preserved posting as sufficient notice.
- The trial court denied the bill of review; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the current Estates Code notice requirement (service of process on ascertainable heirs when probate occurs more than four years after death) applied and was not satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probate was defective for failure to serve heirs under the post-1999 notice rule when will was probated >4 years after death | Byerley: Section 258.051 requires service of process on each heir whose address can be reasonably ascertained for wills probated >4 years after death; McCulley did not serve him | McCulley: Pre-1999 savings clause made posting sufficient for decedents who died before Sept. 1, 1999; thus posting was permissible | Court held Section 258.051 applies; posting was insufficient and service requirement was not met — reversible error and bill of review granted |
| Whether any actual or imputed knowledge of the probate proceeding excuses statutory service | Byerley: statutory service cannot be supplanted by imputed/actual knowledge | McCulley: Byerley’s prior attorney knew of plans to probate and so Byerley had notice | Court held actual or imputed knowledge does not replace statutory service requirements (Wilson v. Dunn principle) |
Key Cases Cited
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (statutory interpretation: give effect to plain text absent absurdity)
- Fleming Foods of Tex., Inc. v. Rylander, 6 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. 1999) (codification repeal: prior statute ceases to exist when repealed)
- Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1990) (actual or imputed knowledge does not replace required statutory service)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial-court decisions)