### NUM BER 13-06- 0056 2-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
IN TH E ES TA

TE OF B OBB IE S. LY NC H, DEC EASED
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 16t h Dist rict C ou rt o f K en da ll Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan ts, Peg g y

Je an ( Ly nch) Sac khei m and Patr ic ia Ann ( Ly nch) Al der man, fil ed a pet it ion i n the Kenda ll C ounty C our t atLaw for a n ac count in g a nd di str ibu ti on of the est ate o f their

mother , Bo bbi e S. Ly nch, and f o r th e r e m o v al of appell ee, Tr acy Ju ne Lynch, as inde pen den t executrix

. T he Kend all Coun ty Court at Law transf erred th e case to t he 216t h D is tr ic t C our t of Kenda ll C ounty , w her e i t was th e n di smi ss ed. Appel lan ts challen g e th e di s mi s s al , c on te nd i ng t he d i s tr i c t c ou rt' s o r de r i s v oi d for

l ac ko f s ub

jectBy t hei r f i r st i ssue, appel l ant s cont end t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n gr ant i ng a ppel l ee' s pl ea t o t he 1 j uri s di c t i on an d m oti on i n l i m i ne be c au s e t he y h ave s t an di ng i n t hi s c as e. H ow eve r, thi s i s s ue i s n ot ne c es s ary to th e fi n a l d i s p o s i ti o n o f th i s a p p e a l ; t h e re fo re , w e d o n o t a d d re s s i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. 2 ma t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n
. W e v a c a t e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt ' s o r d e r a n d r e ma n d w i t h i n s t r uct ion s t o 1 return th e case to the Kend all Count y Court at La w , w here jurisdiction rem ains. I. B A CK GRO UND As inde pen den t executrix , app ellee f iled an app lication to proba te he r moth er's w ill and for issuance of

letters test am ent aryin the Ken dall Coun ty Court at L aw. Th e Ken dall Co u n t y Co u rt a tL a w a d m it t e d t h e wil l t o p ro b a t e a n d gra n t e d le t t e rs t e s t a m e n t a ry. Appel lan ts subs eq uentl y fil e d a p eti ti on i n the Kenda ll C ounty C our t atLaw for
acc ounti ng and dis tr ibu ti on of the est ate p ursuantto sec ti ons 149A and 149B of the Tex as Probate Cod e and for remov al of the i ndependen t ex ecut ri x under se cti on 149C

. See T EX
. P ROB
. C OD E A NN . §§ 149A, 149B ( Ver non 200 3) , 14 9 C (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08)

. Appel lee f il e d a p l e a t o t h e ju ri s d ic t io n a n d m o t io n in li m in e in t h e K e n d a ll Co u n t y Co u rt a tL a w, cl aimi ng t h a t a p p e ll ants l ack ed s tandi ng to seek an a cc ounti ng and dis tr ibu ti on of the est ate. Ins tead of rulin g on a ppel lee 's pl ea to the jur is dic ti on and moti on i n l imi ne, t he Ken dall Coun ty Court at Law transf erred the case to the 216 th D istrict Court o f Kend all Coun ty. Af

ter a he aring on t he p lea to the jurisdiction and mot ion in limine , the district
cour t s ust ain ed appe ll ee's moti ons, and dis mis sed appel lan ts' peti ti on for acc ounti ng and d is t ri b u t io n a n d fo r r e m o va l o f t h e in d e p e n d e n te xe c u t ri x. II. S TAND ARD OF R EVI EW W e r ev iew

the tr ial co urt' s s ubj ectmatte r jur is dic ti on de nov o. Musqu iz v. Marroquin , 124 S.W .3d 906 , 909 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 4, pe t. den ied). Any orders entered by

a c our t l ack ing su bje ct matter j ur is dic ti on are v oid

. See B ro wning v. Pr ostok ," ' P rob ate m att er, ' ' P rob ate pro c ee di ng s , ' ' P roc ee di ng i n p rob ate, ' a nd ' P roc ee di ng s for prob ate' are 2 s y n o n y m o u s a n d i n c l u d e a m a tte r o r p ro c e e d i n g re l a ti n g to th e e s ta te o f a d e c e d e n t." T EX
. P ROB
. C OD E A NN
. § 3 (bb ) ( V ern on S up p. 20 08 ). 3 1 6 5 S. W .3 d 33 6 , 3 4 6 (T e x. 20 0 5 ) (ci ti n g Brow ningv. Placke , 6 9 8 S

. W

. 2 d 3 6 2 , 3 6 3 (T e x. 1985) ( or ig . proceed ing ) (p er cu ri am))

. "Subj ectmatte r jur is dic ti on is ess enti al to t he author it y of a cour

t t o dec ide a c ase, " and it"i s n ev er pr esumed and c annot be w aiv ed." Tex

. Ass 'n of Bus. v. T

ex. Ai r Con tr ol Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 440, 443-4 4 ( Tex . 199 3)

. The is sue of subj ectmatte r jur is dic ti on may be rais ed for the first ti me on ap peal

. Id. at 445. III

. A N A LY S IS B y their secon d issue, app ellant s argue that the 21 6th Distri ct Court of Kend all Cou nty does not hav e jur is dic ti on ov er probate m atters. Appel lee co unters t hat t he probate code does not e x pli ci tl y di v estthe dis tr ic t c our

t of j ur is dic ti on. In K endal l Cou nty , t he c ounty co urt atl aw

ex er ci ses j u ris d icti on ov er probate matters. See T EX
. G OV ' T C OD E A NN . § 25.0003 (d ) (V er non Supp. 2008)

. Kendal l Cou nty has no s tatut or

y probate cour

t. See i d. § 25.1321 (V er non 2004) ; T EX
. P ROB
. C OD E A NN
. § 3(ii) ( Verno n 20 03). Unde r section 5(c) of the prob ate code , in coun ties w here there a re
no s tatut or

y probate cour

ts, al l appl ic ati ons, peti ti ons, and moti ons re g ar din g probate and admini strati ons sha ll be fil ed and heard i n the co unty co urt atl aw

ex er ci si ng probate jur is dic ti on. T EX
. P R OB
. C OD E A NN . § 5(c) (Vernon Su pp. 200 8). Th erefore, th e Ken dall Coun ty Court at L aw has o rig inal jurisdiction o v er proba te proce edin gs. See Bailey v. 2 Che ro kee Cou nty

Appr ais al Di st. , 862 S.W .2d 5 81, 5 85 ( Te x. 1 993) ( "In t hose count ies
w her e the re ar e s tatut or y cour ts ex er ci si ng probate jur is dic ti on, suc h c our ts share or ig ina l jur is dic ti on ov er probate pr oceed ing s w it h the co nst it uti onal co unty co urt .

. . . "); Hailey v. Si gla r , 194 S.W .3d 74, 77 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2006, pet. deni ed) ( conc lud ing thati n aSect i on 1 49A pr ov i des t hat i fan i ndepe ndent e x ec utor d oes " not com pl y wi t h a dem and f or an 3 account i ng .
. . wi t hi n si xt y day s af t er r ecei pt of t he d em and, t he p ers on m aki ng t he d em and m ay com pel c om pl i ance by an act i on i n t he c ou nty c ou rt , a s th a t t e rm i s d e fin e d b y S e c ti o n 3 o f th i s c o d e ." I d. § 1 49A ( Ver non 2003)

. Pur suant t o sect i on 149B, " a per son i nt er est ed i n t he est at e m ay pet i t i on t he c ou nty c ou rt , a s th a t t e rm i s d e fin e d b y S e c tio n 3 o f t h is c o d e , fo r a n a c c o u n ti n g a n d d i s tri b u ti o n ." I d. § 149B ( Ver non 2003)

. Sect i on 149C st at es, " T he c ou nty c ou rt , a s t ha t t er m i s de f i ne d by Se ct i on 3 o ft hi s co de , o n i t s ow n m ot i on o r on m ot i on o fany i nteres t ed per son, af t er t he i ndepe ndent execu t or has been ci t ed b y per sonal s e rv i c e to a n s w e r a t a ti m e a n d p l a c e fi x e d i n th e n o ti c e , m a y re m o v e a n in d e p e n d e n t e x e c u to r
. . . ." I d. § 14 9C (Ve rno n S u p p. 20 08 ). U nd er s ec t i on 3 o f t he prob ate c od e, " ' C ou nty C ou rt ' an d ' P rob ate C ou rt ' are s y n o n y m o u s te rm s a n d d e n o te

. . . c o u rts c re a te d b y s ta tu te a n d a u th o rize d to e x e rc i s e o rig i n a l p ro b a te ju ris d i c ti o n
. . . ." I d. § 3 (e) ( V ern on S up p. 20 08 ). 4 count y w it hout a s tatut or

y probate cour

t, the c ounty

co u rtat law

had or ig ina l probate jur is dic ti on) ; Lee v

. Her sey , 2 2 3 S

. W

. 3 d 4 3 9 , 4 4 4
- 4 5 ( Te x
. A p p
. –A ma r i l l o 2 0 06, p et. den ied) (same ). Appe l l a n t s ' p e t i t i o n i n v o l v e s t h e a d mi n i s t ra t i o n o f t h e i r m o t h e r ' s e s t a t e ; t h e r e fore, under se cti on 5( c) , thei r peti ti on mus t be filed and heard i n the co unty co urt atl aw
. See T EX
. P R OB
. C OD E A NN . §§ 5( c) , 149 A, 1 49B, and 149 C. Be caus e the Kenda ll C ounty 3 Cou rta t L a w

has or ig ina l jur is dic ti on, t he 216t h D is tr ic t C our t of Kenda ll C ounty

nev er acq uired j ur is dic ti on. See Hai ley, 1 9 4 S .W .3 d at 77. Therefor e, w e c oncl ude t hat t he dis tr ic t c our

t' s j udg ment i s v oid

. See B ro wning , 165 S.W .3d at 346 . W e susta in appel lan ts' se cond is sue. III

. C ONCL US I ON W e v acat e the o rd er

of the 2 16th Di str ic t C our t of Kenda ll C ounty

and re mand the
cas e to the d is tr ic t c our t w it h ins tr uct ion s to re tur n the ca se to t he Ken dal l Cou nty C our t at Law, w here jurisdiction rem ains.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 9 th da y

of Oct ober , 200 8.