Lisa M. Criswell, as Independent Executor of the Estate of Dolores Sharp, Deceased v. Catherine Polk, Dependent Administrator of the Estate of David Ray Angel, Deceased

No. 01-22-00428-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 12, 2026) · Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas · March 12, 2026 · No. No. 01-22-00428-CV

Summary

The First District Court of Appeals of Texas dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution after Lisa M. Criswell resigned as independent executor of the estate she represented and no successor representative came forward. The court reinstated the appeal to its active docket and granted Catherine Polk’s motion to dismiss under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b).

Court
Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas
Writing for the Court
Chief Justice Adams; Justice Gunn; Justice Johnson
Jurisdiction
Texas Court of Appeals, First District
Decision date
March 12, 2026
Docket number
No. 01-22-00428-CV
Procedural posture
Appeal from a probate court's partial summary judgment, attorney-fee order, and order denying reconsideration; the appellate court abated the appeal to determine whether a successor independent executor could substitute for the resigned appellant and whether the successor wished to continue the appeal, then dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
Precedential value
Published memorandum opinion
Parties
Lisa M. Criswell, as Independent Executor of the Estate of Dolores Sharp, Deceased v. Catherine Polk, Dependent Administrator of the Estate of David Ray Angel, Deceased
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

probate procedureestate administrationappellate procedureprobatecivil procedure

Practice areas

ProbateAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureReal Property

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the appeal could proceed after the named appellant resigned as independent executor and no successor independent executor came forward to substitute as appellant.
  2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b).

Holdings

  1. Because Criswell resigned from her representative capacity and no successor independent executor or other interested person came forward to substitute or continue the appeal, the appeal could not proceed in its existing posture.
  2. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b).

Key quotations

A civil suit may be maintained only by and against parties having an actual or legal existence. (at 2)
A decedent’s estate “is not a legal entity and may not properly sue or be sued as such.” (at 2)
This case is reinstated on this Court’s active docket and dismissed for want of prosecution. (at 5)

Factual background

The appeal arose from a dispute over ownership of Houston real property between the estate of David Ray Angel and the estate of Dolores Sharp. The probate court granted Polk partial summary judgment, declared two correction instruments and a special warranty deed valid, vested title in Polk as dependent administrator, denied Sharp's counterclaim, and awarded Polk attorney's fees. During the appeal, Criswell resigned as independent executor of Sharp's estate, and neither the named successor nor any other person sought appointment as successor representative or notified the appellate court of an intent to continue the appeal.

Procedural history

Polk sued concerning ownership of Houston real property and asserted declaratory, title, trespass, warranty, quiet-title, and fraudulent-claim causes of action. The probate court granted Polk partial summary judgment, entered declarations concerning correction instruments and a special warranty deed, vested title in Polk as dependent administrator, denied Sharp's estate's counterclaim, awarded Polk attorney's fees, and denied reconsideration. After Criswell resigned as independent executor during the appeal and no successor representative came forward, the appellate court abated the appeal, held a hearing was conducted in the probate court, reinstated the appeal, and dismissed it for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b).

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Texas Court Of Appeals First District Court Of Appeals For The First District