*1 Moreover, promissory note Holleman applicable Lender be entitled to law. shall Savings to recover expenses signed allows Galveston and collect all reasonable costs enforcing in this expenses “all of provid- its costs pursuing incurred in remedies are to note and the deed trust Note.” The including, not paragraph ed but limited [*] to, reasonable [*] [*] attorney’s [*] [*] fees. [*] be read son, Comm’n 124 Tex. together. App.1935, 524, 81 Braniff Inv. opinion adopted). Co. 50-51 v. Robert Thus, (Tex. recovery of trustee’s authorizes the note also apply proceeds Trustee shall expenses. fees and costs and sale to all reasonable ex- sale, penses including, not limit- but that court We therefore conclude to, ed reasonable Trustee’s fees attor- holding that Galveston Sav appeals erred ney’s fees.... charge ings Holleman was not entitled expenses. Ed trustee’s fees and reasonable The court the deed of reasoned because points other of error wards raised payment trust authorizes of trustee fees and court failed to appeals court of which that proceeds expenses out of the foreclosure Accordingly, hearing oral without address. sale, payment if no is not authorized fore- argument, reverses the Court conclusion, however, closure occurs. This appeals and remands the case court of logically premise, not does follow from points to that for consideration addition, contrary paragraph and in previously addressed. error not Tex. trust, part: of the deed of which states R.App.P. 170. Right to Borrower’s Reinstate. Notwith-
standing Lender’s acceleration of sums Trust,
secured this Deed of Borrower right any proceed-
shall have the to have
ings begun by the Lender to enforce this any
Deed Trust discontinued at time
prior days to the earlier to occur [five entry
before the sale en- BAILEY, forcing if Alibe Carter the Deed Borrower Mrs. Trust] Petitioners, owed, al., [pays all all et sums cures breaches pays expenses all and] reasonable incurred enforcing Lender and Trustee in APPRAISAL CHEROKEE COUNTY agreements covenants and of Borrower DISTRICT, al., Respondents. et in this Deed of Trust and in contained enforcing Lender’s Trustee’s remedies No. D-1893. provided in paragraph 18 hereof includ- Supreme Court of Texas. ing attorney but limited to reasonable fees.... Sept. 1993. expenses
The “reasonable incurred Lend- Dissenting Opinion of Justice enforcing” er and Trustee the borrower’s June Gonzalez obligation include the trustee’s fees and ex- jury penses to be which found reason- argues paragraph
able. 19 is Holleman
inapplicable he not to rein- because asked effect, pay
state the loan but to it off.
however, sought a Holleman discontinuation proceedings, para-
of foreclosure
graph expressly applies. *2 Dallas, petitioners. Bailey, E. for
William Low, Austin, Force, F. Duane Peter W. Dowd, Beall, Ty- Rodney Longview, Tab B. ler, respondents. for
OPINION ON MOTION REHEARING FOR SPECTOR, Justice. rehearing
Respondents’ are motions part. in granted part in and overruled judgment of opinion court’s June withdrawn, following and the is substitut- ed therefor. presents question whether a
This cause taxes suit collect ad valorem during administration estate, properly filed claim court, for which heirs are or a claim appeals held personally liable. The court of that the heirs are taxes and that a district court has concurrent statutory probate court with a (1991). over this matter. present consti- we that the suit Because hold estate which should tutes a claim probate court which have been filed in the pending, we reverse the administration was court, appeals claims taxing authorities’ without dismiss the prejudice. Bailey died intestate W.E. Texas, by his County, survived
Cherokee wife, Bailey, and two Petitioner Alibe Carter sons, Bailey E. adult Petitioners William Bailey. At the time of his Robert E. Bailey com- owned as W.E. and Alibe Carter munity property land located Cherokee Bailey appointed County. Carter was Alibe representative is em expenses: the estate’s of the estate the intestate administrator money payment “[f]or to borrow dependent powered administration. valorem, income, gift inher any ad Following depen- commencement of the itance, the transfer or transfer administration, Respondents, Cherokee dent or from a decedent or ward an estate due *3 District, County Appraisal County, Cherokee (em 329(a)(1) estate.” Tex.Prob.Code his Jacksonville, City in the and the of filed suit added). Thus, ac ad taxes phasis valorem County against District Court of Cherokee during cruing are classified administration Baileys seeking a jointly severally, and the against v. the estate. See Oldham claims $90,- in the personal amount of Keaton, 938, (Tex.Civ.App.— 597 945 1976-1986, years for tax fore- 608.48 and (ad n.r.e.) 1980, 'd valorem writ ref Texarkana delinquent property of tax for closure liens paid during pendency administration taxes, interest, fees which accrued and had necessary preserve estate expenses were subsequent the decedent’s death. assets); Beaudry, Sav. Ass’n v. San Antonio judgment ordering district rendered 277, (Tex.App. 281 liens, tax the foreclosure the but denied — Houston denied) 1989, in (expenses Dist.] [14th judg- taxing prayers personal authorities’ for obtaining reduced administrator curred against Baileys. ap- ment the The court property for ad valorem valuation of estate remanded, peals holding reversed that proceeds of purposes payable tax were from the authorities were entitled to the property). judgment. personal 817 at 120. I. ordinarily personally Heirs are not against the estate while the liable for claims during pendency Taxes remains administration. See estate under charged generally of administration are 610-11, McDonald, 604, 46 v. 92 Tex. Blinn against Mayes, the estate. See Blanton 72 (1898).2 787, (“Taxes A an es 417, 420, 10 452, (1889) 790 creditor of S.W. 453 Tex. S.W. personal testator, tate “cannot have a due at the date of the death of the heirs, legatees, legal devisees or or subsequently accruing, and those would con estate_”). estate dece representatives of the of a debts of the The Pro stitute his creditor must enforce expenses [T]he Code administra dent. bate classifies administration, expenses through the es preserva tion and incurred claim where tion, distributed; safekeeping, management directly against not not tate is Basham, estate as claims Tex. the heirs.” Smith v. estate. 853, 1950), (Tex.Civ.App. aff'd, Prob.Code 322.1 Ad valorem taxes on es 856 — Dallas (Tex.1950).3 property scope
tate
fall within
of such 233 S.W.2d
argues
dissenting opinion
expenses
accept the
1. The
that
that an heir must
succession to
necessary
preservation
for
responsible
of an estate
for
he is called
he becomes
before
they
paid
succession.”);
not classifiable as such until
have been
Wittkamp
v. Witt
the debts of
Code,
605,
473,
howev-
administrator. The Probate
kamp, 69 Ohio Law Abs.
126 N.E.2d
er, prohibits
dependent
administrator
law,
(C.P.1954) (under
liable
Ohio
heirs are
paying a
until it has
administration from
claim
recovered);
actually
only
Lan
to extent of assets
approved by the court.
been
Landau,
556,
103, 107
Ill.
101 N.E.2d
dau v.
Approval by
§ 319.
the court entails classifica-
(1951) (heirs
only
debts
are liable for decedent's
expense
hierarchy
claims
tion of the
Will,
assets);
re
if
receive
In Schmitt's
established
Probate Code section 322. See
686,
(Sur.Ct.
N.Y.S.2d
187 Misc.
1946)
State,
(Tex.1982).
Blair v.
(heirs,
equitable
title in estate
holders
Thus,
dissenting opinion’s reasoning
would
realty
personally liable
tax
property, are
for
trap:
ex-
leave
in a
an
administrators
financial
rather,
es;
legal title is
as holder of
administrator
pense
until it
would not be classifiable as a claim
liable).
paid; yet
payable
had been
a claim would not be
expense.
it had
until
been classified
Hosp.,
W.Q.
Potts
Richards Memorial
3.See also
(Tex.Civ.App.
jurisdictions
rule
Other
have also followed the
— Amarillo
writ)
(in
order to recover from
prior
held
that heirs
not be
prove
property
actual
unpaid creditor must
property.
Keele
to the distribution of estate
Stakes,
ly
equalled
to heir
or exceeded
(La.Ct.App.1992)
distributed
608 So.2d
("The
Coffee,
sought);
provisions
clear
Perkins
Cain
of our Civil Code make
amount
law,
argue, though,
during
period
authorities
Under Texas
administration,
immediately
the decedent’s estate
title
vested
or
giving
the heirs
hands of the executor
administrator
decedent’s
immediate,
a trust estate. The executor
personal
constitutes
rise
for sub-
stake-holder,
argument
administrator is more than a
sequently accruing
This
taxes.
agent
or the
as a
a naked
mere
donee of
upon provisions
the Tax
based
and Pro-
heirs, legatees,
power
and devisees.
of the
bate Codes. Section 32.07
Tax Code
possession
He
exclusive
and control
has
provides:
ac-
charged
He is
with
entire estate.
[Property
taxes are the
obli-
positive
tive
duties. He is an active
gation of the person
acquires
who owns or
estate.
trustee of a trust
January
year
1 of the
*4
(10th
812,
Whittington,
v.
194
Jones
F.2d
817
imposed....
the
tax is
Hamlett,
Cir.1952);
24
Morrell
see also
v.
Additionally, Section 37 of the Probate Code
1929,
531,
(Tex.Civ.App.
S.W.2d
534
— Waco
provides:
ref'd) (estate property
writ
under administra
intestate,
person
all
[W]henever a
dies
trust).
tion is
in
held
estate
immediately
his
shall vest
his
37,
administrator,
Under
the
Section
law,
heirs at
...
still be
but
shall
liable and
legal
property,
trustee of
assumes
the estate
subject in
the payment
their hands to
235,
Long Long,
title.
247
See
...;
upon
the debts of the intestate
but
1952,
(Tex.Civ.App.
ref'd
— Texarkana
...
the issuance of letters
of administra-
n.r.e.) (“In any
legal
active trust the
title and
upon any
the ...
tion
such
adminis-
right
possession
are vested in the trust
right
possession
trator shall
to
have the
_”).
title,
legal
ee
As holder of
the trustee
posses-
estate ...
he
recover
the
shall
purpose
is the
the
taxation.
owner for
of and
sion
hold such estate
trust to be This
in Driscoll
principle was articulated
disposed of in accordance with the law.
1,
County,
Foundation v. Nueces
445 S.W.2d
1969,
(Tex.Civ.App.
writ dism’d
The
authorities contend that
these
— Beaumont
w.o.j.),
which also involved the assessment
provisions,
together,
read
establish that the
heirs,
owners,
personally
ad valorem taxes:
as the
are
liable for
at
the taxes
issue.
Trustees,
Foundation,
the
The
not the
had
legal
in this
title to the
involved
however,
taxing purposes,
For
suit; and,
owners, the
Trustees were
owners
heirs are not considered the
of estate
required to render the same for ad valo-
yet
administration.
Har
under
taxes_
rule,
general
proper-
rem
As a
(Tex.
629,
Swoveland,
per v.
591 S.W.2d
ty
Trustee
held in trust is assessed to the
(while
writ)
1979,
Civ.App.
no
title
— Dallas
legal title
to the
as holder of the
and not
upon
immediately in
vests
devisee
decedent’s
though
beneficiary, even
tax is in sub-
administration).
subject
this title is
beneficiary.
stance on the interest
37, in addition to
Probate Code Section
de
(Citations omitted.)
it
While
is true that
claring
immediately
estate vests
equitable
property,
title to
heirs hold
estate
heirs,
also mandates that
the is
give
liability.
does not
rise to tax
interest
letters,
suance of
the administrator “shall
responsibility
The
taxes lies with
right
of the
possession
have the
estate as
title.
legal
administrator as holder
at
it existed
the death of
intestate
immediately in
possession
vesting
the estate
... and he shall recover
of and
rule
disposed
in Probate
Section
hold such estate in trust to be
codified
Code
Thus,
37,
impose tax
has
been construed to
accordance with the law.”
the admin
not
prior to
designated
is
trustee of the es
on heirs
distribution.
istrator
adopted in
property:
rule was
conformance with
tate
309,
801,
(Tex.Civ.App.
(Tex.Civ.App. Corpus
Christi
— Amarillo
—
1965,
n.r.e.) (devisees
1971,
writ) (heirs
personally
writ ref'd
not
no
liable to
though
could
debts
creditors
the estate unless
have dis
for testator's
claimant
hands).
Sanders,
against property
enforce
in their
posed
property);
Elkin
claims
altered
(“The
(Tex.1982)
867,
State,
title
never a time when
“[t]here
axiom that
is
of estates is
for administration
v. Hitch
scheme
not vested in someone.” Welder
probate
be submitted
cock,
(Tex.Civ.App.— claims should
paid through
n.r.e.).
and then
court for classification
This
writ ref'd
Corpus Christi
court”).
probate
of the
orders
rejected
contention that heirs
has
court
consequently personally liable for debts
county
sitting
probate,
When
Blinn
prior to distribution. See
of the estate
credi
empowered to enforce
court at law is
McDonald,
604, 608, 46
92 Tex.
S.W.
A creditor
against the estate.
tors’ claims
(1898)
administration,
have
(during
heirs
payment of
court to order
may petition the
dispose
property, and
power to
insufficient,
claim;
hand are
if funds on
personal liability for debts
have no
prop
may order the sale of estate
the court
property).4
326;
Rivera
erty.
see also
Morales,
(Tex.App.—
II.
n.r.e.) (an
ad
writ ref'd
San Antonio
pur
duty
pay
creditors
ministrator has a
present action consti
Because
court).
If the
suant to orders of
against the
filed after
tutes a claim
refuses to make
court-or
administrator
county
begun
had
administration
*5
may
execu
payment, the creditor
have
dered
jurisdiction
sitting
probate,
law
lies with
at
the
the
tion issued
county
the
court.
owed, plus
costs. Tex.
amount
interest and
In
counties
there are statuto-
those
where
328(a). Alternatively,
§
the court
Prob.Code
jurisdiction,
ry
exercising probate
courts
to
may
representative
and sureties
cite
jurisdiction
original
courts share
over
such
held
why
should not be
show cause
probate proceedings with the constitutional
interest,
debt,
costs
as well as
court,
county
of the district
to
exclusion
328(b).
§
damages.
Tex.Prob.Code
5(c). Accordingly,
§
court. Tex.Prob.Code
claim to the
submitting
Instead of
their
Bailey
prop-
administration of the
estate was
court,
suit
county
taxing
authorities filed
erly
County
initiated in the Cherokee
Court
reflects that
in the district court. The record
at Law.
Baileys filed a “Plea in Abatement and
provides
The
further
Probate Code
for Dismissal of Cause” in the district
Motion
juris
exercising original probate
courts
“[a]ll
court,
taxing
ac-
urging that the
authorities’
power
shall have the
to hear all mat
diction
jurisdiction.
tion be dismissed for want of
ters incident to an estate.” Tex.Prob.Code
final
de-
The district court
its
5(e).
regard
proceedings
to
in statu
With
Baileys’ motion to dismiss.
nied the
courts,
tory county
“matters incident to an
argue that be
“all claims
authorities
estate” are defined to include
empowered with
court is
against an
and “all actions for trial
cause the district
estate”
jurisdiction,
jurisdic
original probate
it has
and for the enforcement of
of title to land
to hear matters incident to the estate.5
liens thereon incident to an estate.” Tex.
tion
5A(a).
pro
empowered
A
with
disagree.
court
The instant suit consti We
Prob.Code
pro
jurisdiction may only exercise its
than
bate
tutes a “claim
the estate” rather
jurisdiction
incident to an
may be
over matters
putative
a claim for which the
heirs
bate
is, moreover,
probate proceeding
related
estate when
personally
held
liable.
suit
in that
already pending
of liens” on such matters
an action “for the enforcement
Bank-Houston
to the estate.”
court.
See
land which is “incident
Interfirst
Petroleum,
Quintana
sum,
pertains to matters incident to
this suit
1985, writ
county
(Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
and the
court at law is
the estate
n.r.e.). Thus,
ongoing ad-
because the
jurisdiction
Blair v.
ref'd
over it. See
vested with
(e).
5(a), (d),
§§
Hosp.,
W.Q.
Richards Memorial
4. See also Potts
945;
Coffee, 466
at
Perkins v. Cain
803;
Sanders,
over matters incident to the estate. GONZALEZ, J., opinion Dissenting ENOCH, joined by JJ. HIGHTOWER
Furthermore,
court in which suit
acquires
jurisdiction to
is first filed
dominant
GONZALEZ, Justice, dissenting.
exclusion of coordinate courts. Curtis
(Tex.1974).
Gibbs,
Be
[June
1993.]
already pend
cause the administration was
Bailey
leaving a
Mr. W.E.
died in 1973
wife
county
this suit was
ing in the
court when
At
Mr.
and two sons.
the time of his
court,
district
filed
Bailey
parcels
of land
and Mrs.
owned
county
court is dominant. See Thomas
comprising 146 acres
value
with
estimated
Tollon,
(Tex.App.—
million
As administrator of
of one
dollars.
n.r.e.)
ref'd
[14th Dist.]
Houston
Bailey paid
Mrs.
all of the debts
(where county
jur
originally
court
exercised
pay the taxes that
of the estate but refuses to
it was
isdiction over
estate
decedent
death.
have accrued since her husband’s
It
inci
proper court to
matters
determine
approximately
years since her
has been
estate).6
dent
apparent
died and
is no
need
husband
there
Nonetheless,
for continued administration.
III.
Bailey
the estate to
Mrs.
has
distributed
hold that the
bears the
We
her sons. The
authorities
during
admin-
for ad valorem
in their
trial court
suit
were successful
Bailey heirs
and that therefore the
istration
taxes. The district
to collect
prior to
held
not be
hable
ordered that a
hen on the
tax
*6
present
The
to collect the
suit
distribution.
appeals
The
affirmed
be foreclosed.
court of
against
over
is a claim
the estate
which
additionally
and
declared that
this
juris-
probate
court maintained exclusive
personally
for this debt.
the heirs were
once the administration commenced
diction
judg-
I
affirm the
817 S.W.2d
would
of
in that court. We reverse
appeals.
the court of
ment of
appeals
court of
and dismiss the
disposition of this
authorities’ claims. Our
majority agrees
Baileys that
The
with the
right
prejudice
any
of
cause is without
against
constitutes a
the estate
this suit
claim
present
authorities to
claims incident
may
heirs
be held
for which
county
in the
court at law
to the estate
support
the Bai-
liable. To
this contention
sitting
probate.
rely
of “claims” in
leys
definition
3(c)
That sec-
Code.
section
Probate
exceptions
certain
not relevant
With
provides:
tion
here,
exempt from court
taxing units are
a decedent
taxes.
include
in suits to collect
“Claims”
liabilities
costs
of
survive,
taxes,
including
§
whether
Consequently, court
Code
83.49.
Tex.Tax
otherwise,
arising in contract
in tort or
by
Baileys
be assessed
or
costs incurred
will
a tomb-
Indep.
expenses,
expense of
Nacogdoches
funeral
them.
administration,
stone,
expenses
McKinney,
Dist. v.
School
(Tex.1974)
taxes,
against the
by
inheritance
liabilities
(winning taxpayer in action
and
589,
Bennett,
juris
county
acquired
exercised
v.
S.W.2d
court had
and
also Carlisle
6. See
1990,
writ)
("A
diction).
(Tex.App. Corpus
judge
a
§
Christi
no
Tex.Prob.Code 5B
—
Cf.
(even assuming
have
that
court did not
statutory probate
may
to his
...
transfer
court
jurisdiction
to exercise
exclusive
it was entitled
from a district
court a cause
action
court
first
jurisdiction exclusive
other courts as
pending
appertaining to or
to an estate
incident
theory
acquire
under
court
statutory probate
and
consoli
Williams,
jurisdiction”);
"dominant
Crawford
with the
of action
date the transferred cause
184,
(Tex.App. Corpus Christi
—
statutory probate court
proceedings in
other
denied) (district
1990,
have
court did not
estate.”).
relating to that
proceeding where
jurisdiction over will contest
alternatively, and the
Baileys argue
incompetent, and
minor or
estate of a
these
today agrees, that
majority
the court
due such estates.
debts
against the estate
claims
delinquent taxes are
1980)
(Vernon
3(c)
Ann.
Tex.Prob.Code
expenses
are
of the fact
virtue
added).
Baileys assert
(emphasis
administration, necessary
preserva-
definition,
“surviving”
liabilities
this
under
tion,
management of the
safe-keeping, and
in-
limited to those
are not
the deceased
administra-
true if the
This would be
estate.
alive, but
was
curred while
decedent
taxes,
actually
paid the
have
tor would
and inheri-
expenses as estate
include such
from the estate
seeking reimbursement
was
expenses
taxes,
expenses,
funeral
tance
case,
In this
howev-
expenditures.
for such
They
suggest that
further
of administration.
er,
seeking to col-
taxing authorities are
necessarily in-
liability which survives
“tax”
delinquent taxes
nonpayment of
lect for the
and inheri-
other than estate
cludes taxes
and,
such,
seeking remuneration
are not
property taxes
Consequently,
tance taxes.
preservation of
incurred in the
expenses
subsequent
death
to the decedent’s
property.
the estate
as debts of the deceased
may be classified
argu-
against the estate. This
and assessed
ownership
Although at death
premise that
based
ment is
immediately in the
the adminis
vests
which sur-
phrase “liabilities of
decedent
right,
only has the
but also
trator not
by and includes the subse-
vive” is modified
of this
duty
possession and control
to take
expenses.
quently enumerated debts
during the course of the administra
reading of
my opinion, this is an incorrect
of the estate.
pay
the debts
tion
order
provision.
Bear,
37;
see also Bloom
3(c) classifies certain debts and
Section
146,
(Tex.App.
— Houston
payment and collection of
expenses,
writ);
1986,
Atlantic Ins. Co.
no
Dist.]
[14th
“claims”
which are considered
(Tex.Civ.App.—
Fulfs, 417
Expenses
after the de-
estate.
incurred
n.r.e.);
writ ref 'd
Cain
Fort Worth
expenses, ex-
such as funeral
cedent’s
Church,
(Tex.Civ.App.—
administration,
in-
penses
and estate and
writ); Adams v. Bankers
Dallas
taxes,
charged
are
to the estate
heritance
(Tex.Comm’n
Co.,
Life
3(c).
recognition in
way
express
section
During this
holding approved).
App.1931,
of decedent which survive”
“[Liabilities
administration,
repre
period of
*7
recognized
provision
in
as
expressly
this
also
fiduciary obli
owes a
sentative of the estate
of
separate
and distinct classification
in
to
care
order
gation to use reasonable
debts,
including
contemplate
“claims” and
property.1
the estate
preserve and maintain
taxes,
by a decedent for which his
owed
230(a);
§
Humane Soc.
Tex.Prob.Code
of
responsible.
now
estate is
County
Nat’l
v. Austin
Austin and Travis
(Tex.1975),
Bank,
de
cert.
debts,
becomes: who [Pjroperty personal are the obli- payment of delin- to in order to secure look acquires person who owns or gation of the personal quent valorem taxes when ad year for January 1 of the on pay these taxes representative fails imposed. which the tax is property during the administration statute, 1992) (Vernon Tax and Probate By the estate? 32.07 Ann. Texas Tax Code ad valorem taxes that these added). Codes establish imposes provision (emphasis This obligation of the owners of personal are the payment of estate; namely, the heirs.2 the real Read- property. taxes on the owners together, the Tax and ing provisions these provides: *8 37 of the Probate Code Section spell and provisions out when Code Probate intestate, all of person a dies [w]henever intestate’s real ownership of an in whom immediately in his vest his estate shall vests, liability tax that neces- and the law, ... shall still be liable but heirs at ownership.3 pay- such sarily flows from subject in their hands and responsibility the legislature imposed on represen has suggest personal a is not to that 2. This heirs, the estate. failing properly liability may avoid tative repre personal assets. The maintain the estate duty fiduciary maintain and a sentative has the presumed to enacted are be 3. All statutes and, existing knowledge as the preserve these assets the legislature full with duty. See Tex. v. may of that them. See Acker be liable for breach with reference to laws and Terrence, 299, (Tex. Comm’n, 230(a); 633 301 Gordon 790 S.W.2d Texas Water Prob.Code 71, 649, 1990); Clayton, 166 (Tex.App. Dist.] 140 Tex. [14th McBride v. 652 S.W.2d — Houston Blair, 125, (Comm’n opinion 1982, writ); App.1942, S.W.2d Co. v. 589 128 no Ins. S.W.2d adopted); Gulf Haunschild, 1979, n.r.e.). S.W.2d 527 T.E.I.A. (Tex.Civ.App. writ ref'd 786 — Dallas n.r.e.). ref'd However, (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo, writ taxing authority, 270 the the as — Tax Code apply the Probate decision We should majority relies on this Court’s The should 417, Any changes or revisions written. Mayes, Tex. 10 S.W. in Blanton v. legislature. This Court (1889), made the 452, proposition that ad be language of plain the accruing” after should not circumvent “subsequently valorem taxes judicial guise of under the these statutes the testator constitute debts the death of However, of the taxes construction. the nature the estate. in Blanton is unclear. Neverthe-
involved
JURISDICTION
ninety-
less,
Blanton case was decided
years
the enactment of Section
was
majority
one
before
holds that the district
Thus,
lien
jurisdiction
the Tax
to the extent
the tax
32.07 of
Code.
to foreclose
without
real
jurisdiction
prop-
ad valorem taxes on
is
property
Blanton involves
and that
on the
effectively
legislature
County
over-
at Law
property, the
has
Court
er
the Cherokee
liability, not
opinion
imposing
dependant
ruled this
administration
ongoing
where
However,
estate,
having
of the
Bailey
pending.
but on the owners
W.E.
liability
property,
personal
the heirs.
for the non-
concluded
accruing subse-
valorem taxes
payment of ad
Long,
majority’s
Long v.
reliance on
falls on the
quent to the decedent’s death
(Tex.Civ.App.
— Texarkana
estate,
of the
I would hold
heirs
n.r.e.),
1952,
Found. v.
writ ref 'd
and Driscoll
jurisdiction
this ac-
court had
over
district
(Tex.Civ.
County, 445
Nueces
tion.4
w.o.j.) is
App.
writ dism’d
— Beaumont
misplaced.
taxing
do not even
brought by
also
These cases
author
This is a suit
estate, but
County seeking
involve the administration of an
to enforce a
ities Cherokee
testamentary
management
by imposing
personal obligation
rather
of the heirs
majority
ordering
also finds Blinn v.
a sale of
personal
trusts. The
(Tex.1898)
McDonald,
Although the sale of the
property.
ant district full over that claim in to afford tion order
relief).
Accordingly, I would affirm appeals. the court of ENOCH, JJ., join
HIGHTOWER and Charlton, only, dissenting opinion. appeal B. Brian Michael Houston, Wice, appellant. C. for Holmes, Jr., Atty., B. and Kar- John Dist. Campbell, en A. Clark and Joan Asst. Dist. Houston, Huttash, Attys., Robert State’s Horn, Atty., Jeffery Atty., Van Asst. State’s Austin, for the State.
Clayton MADDUX, Appellant, Allen OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION REVIEW FOR DISCRETIONARY Texas, Appellee.
The STATE MALONEY, Judge. No. 875-92. jury appellant A convicted of murder and (30) im punishment thirty years at assessed Texas, Appeals of Court of Criminal 19.02. prisonment. Tex.Penal Code Ann. En Banc. published partially opinion, In a the First justice June 1993. one Appeals affirmed with Court State, dissenting. Maddux v. Rehearing Denied Oct. 1992). (Tex.App We Dist.] [1st . —Houston discretionary petition granted appellant’s for holding in to determine our review whether (Tex.Crim. State, Nunfio applicable nontestifying wit App.1991) is victims.1 We hold nesses such deceased that it is. examination,
During the voir dire judge informed venire members that trial range applicable punishment was a (5) probation to a years minimum of five $10,000 imprisonment and a maximum of life unsuccessfully at Defense fine. counsel they could con tempted to ask the if venire probation a murder case where the sider was a deceased child: then, Now we’re not [Defense Counsel]: talking any particular case. It about appel- a new trial on granted whether will reverse and remand for review to determine 1. We also review, analysis ground we will not address appeals first its lant’s the court of erred in *10 admissibility we issue. Because the extraneous offenses of extraneous offenses.