Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed a probate court order authorizing and ratifying the sale of 35 shares of Whittington Investments, Ltd. held in a guardianship estate. The court held that the county court at law had subject matter jurisdiction, that it could ratify the sale after the fact, that the shares were not a specific legacy or trust property, and that Elizabeth Weston received constitutionally sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Holdings
- The probate court had subject matter jurisdiction because the application concerned the disposition of personal property belonging to a guardianship estate, not a proceeding by or against a trustee or concerning a trust.
- A probate court may authorize and ratify a guardian's sale of estate personal property after the sale has occurred when the guardian sought court permission, complied with the statutory process to the extent possible, and the court determines that ratification is in the ward's or estate's best interest.
- The Whittington shares were not a specific legacy excluded from sale under Texas Estates Code section 1158.051(b)(2).
- The probate court was not required to allocate the sale proceeds to the principal of a trust because the Whittington shares were personal property of the guardianship estate, not trust property.
- Elizabeth's due process rights were not violated because she had actual notice of the hearing, filed objections, and appeared and presented those objections at the hearing.
Questions Presented
- Whether the probate court had subject matter jurisdiction over CareFor's application to sell Glenn's personal property.
- Whether the probate court had authority to approve and ratify the sale of the Whittington shares after the sale had been completed.
- Whether the Whittington shares were a specific legacy excluded from sale under Texas Estates Code section 1158.051(b)(2).
- Whether the sale proceeds should have been allocated to the principal of a trust rather than treated as guardianship-estate property.
- Whether the probate court's hearing and notice procedures violated Elizabeth's due process rights.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (8)
- In re Guardianship of Bayne, 171 S.W.3d 232, 235 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied)(followed)
- Saldarriaga v. Saldarriaga, 121 S.W.3d 493, 497 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.)(followed)
- Johnson v. McClintock, 202 S.W.3d 821, 822-23 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2006, no pet.)(distinguished)
- Arizola v. Tutle & Tutle Trucking, No. 04-11-00067-CV, 2012 WL 2335995, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 20, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.)(followed by analogy)
- In re Kaufmans Guardianship Est., 429 S.W.2d 612, 617 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1968, no writ)(followed by analogy)
- Pemberton v. Leatherwood, 218 S.W.2d 500, 505 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1949, writ ref'd n.r.e.)(followed by analogy)
- Green v. Masters, 79 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1935, no writ)(followed by analogy)
- Pierce v. Texas Racing Comm'n, 212 S.W.3d 745, 749 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…