In re Catherine Goodman, in Her Capacity as Temporary Dependent Administrator of the Estate of Lonnie K. Ledbetter, Jr., Deceased

Summary

The Texas Second Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief after concluding that a contractor’s claims against a probate estate were barred under Texas Estates Code Section 355.064(a). The court held that the contractor was required to file suit on its rejected estate claim in the county court where the probate proceeding was pending, rather than in district court, and that all claims arising from the same factual predicate were barred. The court directed the district court to vacate its order denying the Rule 91a motion to dismiss and to grant the motion.

Holdings

1. Estates Code Section 355.064(a) requires a claimant whose probate claim has been rejected to commence suit within ninety days in the court of original probate jurisdiction in which the estate is pending. Because CTCH filed in the 355th District Court rather than the Hood County county court and missed the statutory deadline, its claims against the estate were barred.
2. For purposes of Section 355.064(a), claims arising from the same factual predicate and seeking redress for the same underlying obligation constitute part of the rejected estate claim regardless of whether they are labeled breach of contract, mechanic's lien, quantum meruit, or statutory prompt-payment claims.
3. Section 355.064(a) gives the court of original probate jurisdiction in which the estate is pending exclusive jurisdiction over a suit on a rejected estate claim, rather than merely dominant or concurrent jurisdiction.
4. Abatement was not appropriate because Section 355.064(a) required filing in the probate court, and in any event the dominant-jurisdiction doctrine does not apply absent two pending lawsuits concerning the same subject matter.
5. The district court abused its discretion by denying Goodman's Rule 91a motion to dismiss, and mandamus relief was appropriate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Estates Code Section 355.064(a) barred CTCH's claims against the estate because CTCH filed suit in the district court rather than the court of original probate jurisdiction within ninety days after Goodman rejected its probate claim.
2. Whether Section 355.064(a) applied only to CTCH's breach-of-contract theory or also barred its mechanic's-lien, quantum-meruit, and Texas Prompt Payment Act theories arising from the same factual predicate.
3. Whether abatement, rather than dismissal, was the proper remedy under the dominant-jurisdiction doctrine.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Goodman's Rule 91a motion to dismiss and whether mandamus relief was appropriate.

Disposition

writ_granted