## NO. 12-07-00118-CV IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

IN TH E G UA RD

IAN SHIP OF § APP EAL FRO

M T HE LUKE FORREST HUMPHR EY , § COUNTY COURT A T LAW #2 AN IN CAP ACIT ATE D P ERSO N § SMI TH CO UN TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Th is i s an in te rl oc uto ry

a pp e a l f ro m ord e rs e nte re d in

the g ua rd ians hip of

Luk e F or

re st Humphrey , an inca

pacitate d person. His mother, Susan McL endon, raises one issue reg ardingthe
a tto rney ad lit e m’ s mo tio n in lim ine , w hil e his a

un ts, JoAnn B ow sh ot a

nd Pa tr ic ia Pon do ff , r a ise complaints conce rning jurisdiction, the tem p o rar y g uardia nship, the attorney

ad litem’s fe es, and
va ri ou s tr ia l c ourt

ru lin g s. We r e ve rs e in p art , a ff ir m in pa rt , a nd dis mis s in

pa rt

.

B ACKG ROUND L uk e F orrest Hum ph rey

has been in capac it ate d s in ce a J anu ary 27 , 2 00 5 a

uto mob ile a c c ide nt. I nAp ri l 2 0 0 5 , h i s fa t h er , L an dy Hu mp h re y , wa s ap p o i n t edt em p o ra ry gu ar d i an an d

J

. S co t tKi l l o u gh
wa s a pp oin te d atto rn e y

a d lit e m. K ill ou g h f

ile d a n a pp lic a tio n to c on ve rt

the te mpo ra

ry g ua rd ians hip to a pe rm ane nt gua

rd ians hip , w hic h M c L e nd on op po se d. Mc L e nd on

so ug ht t o h a ve he rs e lf appointed per

manent g uardia

n. Additionally , in April 2006, Bowshot a nd Pondoff filed a

motion t o r e m o v e H u mp h r e y

a s t h e t e mp o r ar

y g u ar d i anan d

a p p o i n t M c Le n d o n t o b e Lu k e ’ s g u ar d i a n . In response to a motion filed by Killough, the trial court sig ned a te mporary restra ining or der in May 20 06 re str a ini ngMc L e nd on fr om c omm

un ic a tin g wi th h e r s on . Th a t or de r wa s la te r c on ve rt e d to2

a tempora ry injunction to be in effe ct throug hout the pendenc y of the tempora

ry g uardia nship. Th e str ug g le ov e r co ntr ol of Luk e c on tin ue d. On Ma

rc h 5, 200 7, Ki llo ug h fil e d a motio n in lim ine a sse rt ingthat Mc L e nd on la c ks sta nd ing in thi s pro c e e din g be c a us e sh e ha s an int e re st that is adver se to L

uke and reque sting the court strike her application for appointment as p er manent g uardia n. After a hea ring , t h e trial court g rante d the motion and dismiss ed all of Mc L endon’s ple a din g s. At the sa

me he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ourt he ard Ki llo ug h’ s a

pp lic a tio n f

or de po sit of se c ur ity for c osts. After he aring evidenc e and argument, the court order ed Humphre y to deposit $2,000.00 into the reg istry

of the c ourt and order ed Pondoff and B owshot to deposit $14,000.00 each into the reg istry of the c ourt. Ther eaf

ter, B o ws h o t an d Pondoff ea ch filed a n aff idavit of inability

to pay
asser ting that they

are disabled, unemploy ed, a n d d rawg overnme nt entitlement. On Marc h 21, 2007, McL endon, P ondoff, and Bow shot filed a notice of appe al from the or der in limine and the or der f or
secur ity for co s t s . On April 2, P ondoff a nd Bow shot moved to disqualify the judg e bec ause the y want e d a s tatuto r

y p r o b a te ju d g e a s s ig n e d to th e c a s e . O n A p r il 2 0 , th e tr ia l c o u rt s igne d order s de c re e ingthat Mc L e nd on

is n ot i n d i g e nt and

de nyingB ow sh ot’ s and

Pon do ff ’s a ff ida vit s o f i na bil ity to pay . The motion to disqualify the judg e wa s denied on Apr il 23, 2007.

J URI S DI CT I ON I n their issues one a

nd one(a ), Pondoff an d Bow shot contend the guardia nship procee ding
was not le g ally commence d and ther efor e the tria l court neve r obtained jurisdiction over the matter. Specifica lly , they

asser t that Humphrey ’s application for appointment to be tempora ry g uardia n was not verified a s require d by the probate code, making this an unlawful ex parte appointment by the trial judg e. In their i ssues three , three (a) , and thre e(b) , they contend that the tr ial court did not have jurisdiction over L

uke bec ause the service and citation re quirements of pr obate c ode sec tion 633
wer e not met. Humphre y

fi le d h is a

pp lic a tio n to b e a

pp oin te d te mpo ra

ry g ua rd ian o f L uk e and his e state on April 15, 2005. I t was not sworn. On April 18, Killough was appointed attorney ad li tem. On April 26, the trial court signe d an order appointing Humphrey temporar y g uardia n until May 3, 2005. On May 3, Humphrey

filed his verific ation of the pre viously filed application. The confir mation hear ing w as set for

May 3. The pa

rties appe are d and pre sented testimony on t h e i ssue of ve nue,3

which Mc L endon had challeng ed. Af ter de termining that venue w as prope r in Smit h County , the
c ourt ann ounc e d th a t du e to a

c on fl ic t, a

nd by a g re e me nt o f c ouns e l, t

he he ari ngwa s re c e sse d unti l the following day . On May 4, the par

ties appeare d an d agr eed to the order c onfirming the appointment of Humphre y as tempora

ry g uard i an . The orde r provides that the temporar y g uardia nship shall be eff

ective f rom April 26, 2005 u n t i l the contest to the a ppointment of a perma nent g uardia

n is resolved, or until the pr oposed wa rd is restore d, or upon fur ther orde r of the
c ourt

. The Te x as Probate Code confe rs jurisdiction on county courts to appoin t g uardia ns for incapa citated pe rsons. See T EX
. P R OB
. C ODE ANN . §§ 605 (Ve rnon 2003), 606 ( Ver non Supp. 2008). The power of a court to a

ppoint a g uardia

n is a specia l power c onfer

red by statute. In re R e dd

ing , 1 2 -0 7 -0 0 0 9 8 -C V, 2 0 0 7 T e x . A p p . L E XIS 3 3 2 9 , at * 4 (T ex . Ap p . – T y l er Ap r. 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( o ri g. proce eding ). Compliance with the statute is a c ondition prece dent to the valid exercise of that power and is jurisdictional. Ortiz v. Gutierrez , 7 92 S.W. 2d 11 8, 11 9 ( Te x. Ap p. –Sa

n Ant on io 1 98 9, wr it dism’d). The proce dure for initiating a temporar y g uardia nship is set out in Texas Pr o b at e C o de Section 875, which has been amended five t imes since it was added t o the code in 1993. See T EX
. P R OB
. C ODE ANN
. § 875 (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). The ve rsion in effe ct in the spring of 2005 provided that “[a] sworn, written application for the appointment of a temporar y g uardia n shall be filed be fore the cour t appoints a temporary g uardia n.” Act of May 30, 2003, 78th L eg ., R.S., ch. 277, § 1, 2003 Te x. Ge n. L aws 12 09 (a

me nd e d 200 5) (c ur

re nt ve rs ion

a t T EX
. P R OB
. C ODE ANN . § 875(c) (Ve rnon Sup p. 20 08 )) . O n the fi lin g of the a pp lic a tio n, the c le rk

mus t is su e no tic e to t

he re sp on de nt a

nd his attorney . T EX
. P R OB
. C ODE ANN . § 875(e) . A hea ring shall be held not later than the tenth day

afte r the dat e o f

th e f il in g o f th e a p p li c a ti o nu n le s s th e h e ar in g d a te is p o s tp o n e d p u r s u an t t o Se ction 875(f) (2). T EX
. P R OB
. C ODE ANN . § 875(f) (1). Luke’s attorney , Killough, a ppear ed at the A

pril 26 hearin g

“to re prese nt the proposed wa rd.” Th e re fo re , it wa s no t an e x p art e he ari ng . O n M ay 3, Humphre y

fi le d h is v e ri fi c a tio n s we ari ngto the tr uth of the a pp lic a tio n a

nd , th e fo llo wi ngda

y , th e tria l c ourt

sig ne d a n o rd e r c on fi rm inghis appointment as tempora

ry g uardia n. Amendments are allowed to supply a nec essar

y verific ation of a plea ding. See Chapin & C hapin , Inc. v. Texas Sand & Gravel Co. , 8 4 4 S. W. 2 d 6 6 4 , 6 6 5 ( T e x.4

1992). B y

amendinghis application to include a ve rification, Humphrey cu re d the def

ect. See Crystal Media, Inc. v. HCI Acquisi tion C orp. , 773 S.W .2d 732, 734 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1989, no writ). Fur ther, B owshot and Pondoff c omplain that Section 633 notice and c itation rules wer e not met. Section 633 applies to perma nent g uardia

nships a nd is ina pplicable here

. Section 875 provides notice and citation rules reg arding appointment of t empora ry g uardia ns. The trial c ourt had subjec t matter jurisdiction over this c ase and in per sonam jurisdiction over the wa rd. We overr

ule B owshot and Pondoff’ s issues one, one( a), thre e, thre e(a ), and thre e(b)

.

N O TIC E O F A P P E AL I n their issues two and two(a) , Bow shot and Pondoff complain of the April 18, 2005 order appointing the attorney ad litem. I n their issues five a nd five(a ), they

complain of the Ma

y 4, 2005 order confirmingthe appointment of the t empora ry g uardia n. I n their eighth i ssue, t hey contend the trial court a

bused its discretion when it dis m i ssed their amended a pplication for r emoval of the temporar y g uar d ian by

its order of Ma

rch 13, 2007. I

n their issues eleve n and ele ven(a ), they complain of the tria l court’s April 23, 2007 order denying their motion for disqualification of the trial judge

. Assu m i n g t h es e four order s are appea lable, B owshot and Pondoff did not file notices of appea l from these or ders. The ref ore, the y have not pe rfe cted a

ppeals fr o m these four

order s. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2 5. 1. We d ism iss B ow sh ot a nd Pon do ff ’s iss ue s tw o, tw o( a ), fi ve , f ive (a ), e ig ht, eleve n, and ele ven(a ).

T E M P ORARY G U A R D IA N SH IP I nt h e i r i s s u e s f o u r , f o u r ( a ) , s i x, s i x( a ) , an d

s e v e n , B o w s h o tan d

P o n d o f f c o mp l a i no f

ru le violations reg arding the appointm ent of the temporary g uardia n. The a ppointment of the temporar y g uardia n beca me moot when the pe rmane nt gua rdian wa s ap p o inted on May 17, 2007. See In r e Be rry , 105 S.W .3d 665, 666 (Tex. App.–Be aumont 20 0 3 , n o pet.). We dismiss Bowshot and Pondoff’s issues four , four( a), six, si x (a) , and seve n.5 M OT I ON I N L I M I NE I n her sole issue, Mc L endon asse rts the trial cour t denied her

due proc ess rig hts beca

use the
no tic e sh e re c e ive d tw o d ay s b e fo re the he ari ngon the mot ion

in limi ne wa s in su ff

ic ie nt. I n th e ir nin th i ssu e , B ow sh ot a

nd Pon do ff c omp la in o f t

he tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin g on

the a d l it em’ s mo tio n in limine. McL endon attende d the M arc h 12 hear ing, made objections to t he evide nce, c ross examined the wit ness presented by the ad litem, testified on her own beha lf, prese nted her own witnesses, a

nd prese nted closing argument to the court re g ardingthe motion in li mine. By order of Mar ch 12, 2007, the trial cour

t gr anted that motion, dismis s ed all of McL endon’s plea dings, a nd order ed that McL endon is barr ed fr om filing an application for the appointment of a g uardia n or conte sting a

ny application filed to a

ppoint a g uardia

n on behalf

of the propose d war d. The Te x as Probate Code provides that a person who submits to the jurisdiction of the cour t in a hear ing is de emed to have waived notice of the he aring . T EX
. P R OB
. C ODE ANN
. § 635 (Ve rnon 20 03 ). Mc L e nd on

ha s w a ive d th is c omp la int by pa rt ic ipatin g in t

he he ari ng . We ov e rr

ule McL endon’s sole issue. The orde r g ranting the motion in li mine does not p er t ain t o Bow shot or Pondoff. An appea ling pa

rty may not complain of errors that do not injuriously aff ect it or that merely

aff ect the rig hts of others. Torring to n C o . v. Stu tzm an , 4 6 S. W.3 d 8 29 , 8 43 (T e x. 20 00 ). Stand ingis a
nece ssary component of subject matter jur isdiction, which is essential to the authority of the c ourt to decide a

dispu te. Cook v. Exxon C orp. , 145 S.W .3d 776, 780 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2004, no pet.). Be ca

u s e B o w s h o t a

n d Po n d o f f la c k s ta n d in g a s to th e M ar c h 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 o r d e r g r an ti n g the motion in l imine, we dismiss their ninth is sue.

S E CURI T Y F OR C OSTS I n their tenth issue, B owshot and Pondoff c ontend the t rial cour t abused its discretion by hear ing the ad litem’s motion for security for c osts before they

wer e prope rly

serve d with notice. They further argu e t h at i f the trial c ourt had he ard the ir motion to remove the tempora ry g uardia n in J une 2006, no fe es would have acc rued. On Marc h 9, 2007, Killough f iled his se cond ame nded application for deposit of sec urity forS e c tio n 6 6 5 A o f t h e p ro b a te c o d e p ro v id e s tha t p a ym e n t o f a fe e se t b y the c o u rt a s c o m p e n sa tio n to 1
a tto rn e ys a p p o inte d in a gu a rd ia n sh ip is t o b e tax e d a s c o sts in th e c a se . T EX
. P R OB
. C O D E A NN
. § 665A ( V er n on 6 costs reque sting the c ourt order the par ties to deposit a sum of not less than $30,000.00 to secure the pay ment of costs. The c ertifica te of ser vice r ecites that a copy

of the motion was sent to Pondoff a nd Bow shot by

cer tified mail, return r ece ipt requested, on Ma rch 8, 2007. Bowshot and Pondoff attende d the hea ring , which beg an on Mar ch 12 and w as complete d on Marc h 13, expecting the court to a ddress motions that had been on file for fiftee n day s or more and d i d n o t expect to have to def end the motion for se curity for c osts. At that hearing , they eac h
cross e x amined Killoug h afte r he g ave te stimony reg ard i n g his fees a

nd the nee d for se curity

for
c os ts a nd the y argue d to the c ou

rt tha t the a pp lic a tio n sho uld be de nie d ba se d o n th e me ri ts. Thus , by participating in the he aring , Bow shot and P ondoff submi tted to the jurisdiction of the cour t and
are there fore deeme d to have wa ived notice of the hea ring

. See T EX
. P R OB
. C ODE ANN . § 635. Killough testified a s to his current a nd projec ted fe es and e x penses. Bowshot and Pondoff did no t pr e se nt e vid e nc e sh ow ingwh a t amou nt, if any , h e wo uld

be e nti tle d to if

the ir mot ion to
re mov e the te mpo ra

ry g ua rd ian h a d b e e n r

ule d o n in

June 20 06

. Th e tr ial c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n b y

he ari ngthe a

pp lic a tio n f

or se c ur ity of c os ts. We o ve rr ule B ow sh ot a

nd Pon do ff ’s te nth issue.

A FFI D A V IT OF I NDI GE NCE I n th e ir iss ue s tw e lve and

tw e lve (a ), B ow sh ot and Pon do ff c on te nd the tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s discretion by

having a h ea ri ng on their af fidavits of indig ence and deny ing the aff

idavits in the absenc e of a

contest. We ag ree . On Marc h 21, 2007, Bo ws h o t fi l ed an a ffidavit of ina bility to pay and Pondoff f

iled an aff idavit of indige nce, both a sserting that they rec eive a g overnme nt e ntitlement. A h ear ing
re gar d i n g t h o s e af

fi d av i t s wa s h el d

o nAp ri l 1 9

. On Ap ri l 2 0 , t h e t ri al co u rt s i gn edo rd er s “d en y i n g” t h o s e a ff i d av i t s . T h e o rd er s d o n o tco n t ai nt h e t ri al co u rt ’s re as o n i n g. The proba te code authorizes an ad litem to request a c ourt order requiringa per son who files opposition i n relation to the gua rdianship matter to g ive sec urity for the pr obable c osts of the proce eding . T EX
. P R OB
. C O D E ANN . § 622 (Ve rnon 2003). A par ty who is unable to provide 1S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). It furth e r p ro v id e s tha t i f t h e p ro p o se d w a rd is un a b le to p a y fo r th e a tto rn e y’s se rv ic e s, the c o u n ty i s

re sp o n sib le fo r th e c o st o f t h o se se rv ic e s. Id

. W e need not ad d res s t he ap p arent co nf l i ct be t ween S ect i o n 62 2 and Se c t i on 66 5A. 7 secur ity for costs may proce ed without g iving secur ity if she files an aff idavit of inability t o pay costs. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 45 . T he a d li te m ma y c on te st the a ff

ida vit by fi lin g a

wr itt e n c on te st g iving notice to a ll pa

rties. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 45 (d ). I f a c on te st i s n ot f

ile d, the un c on te ste d a ff

ida vit of inability

to pay costs is conclusive as a

matter of la

w. E q u itable Gen. Ins. C o. v. Yates , 684 S.W. 2d 66 9, 67 1 (T e x. 19 84 ). Th e re c or d d oe s n ot r e fl e c t th a t B ow sh ot’ s and Pon do ff ’s a ff ida vit s of indig ence wer e c o n t es t ed

. There fore , they showed a s a matter of

law that they

could not be require d to pay

the $14,000.00 ea ch as de posit for secur i t y fo r co s t s . Acc ording ly , the trial cour t
err ed in deny

ing the ir aff

idavits. We sustain Bow shot a nd Pondoff’s issues twelve and twelve (a)

.
C ON STI TUTION A L R I GH TS I n their issues thirteen a

nd thirteen(a ), B owshot and Pondoff c o n t en d t h e trial c ourt neve r established jurisdiction over L uke, thereby denying his c onstitut ional rig hts. As expl ained a bove, the trial cour

t had j u ri s d i ct i o n over L

uke. The ref

ore, his constitutional rig hts were not violated. They also contend the y wer e denied due process and acc ess to the cour ts when the trial c ourt ref

used to h e ar t heir pl eadi ngs. Th e y

do no t sp e c if

y wh ic h p le a din g s. To the e xten t th e y are re fe rr ingto McL endon’s plea dings, which wer e dismiss ed when the trial court g rante d the motion in li mine, they do not have standing to raise that c omplaint. See Stu tzm an , 46 S.W .3d at 843. To the e x tent they
are ref err ing to the trial court’s dismi ssal of t heir amended application for removal of the temporary g uardia n, that issue i s m o o t

. See In r eBe rry , 158 S.W .3d at 666. We overr ule B owshot and Pondoff’s issues thirteen a nd thirteen(a ).

C ONCL US I ON We af fi rm the trial cour

t’s Marc h 12, 2007 order

g rantingthe motion in li mine. We reve rse

th e A p r il 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 o r d e r s d e n y in g B o w s h o t’ s a f f id a v it o f in a b il it y to p a y and Pondoff’s af

fidavit of indig ence . For want of jurisdiction, we dis miss the issues complaining of th e Ap ri l 1 8 , 2005 order8

appointing the attorney

ad litem, t h e April 26, 2005 order appointing the temporar

y g uardia n, the May 4, 2005 order

confirmingthe appointment of the te mporary g uardia n, the Marc h 13, 2007 order dismiss ing the amende d application for remova l of t he temporary g uardia n, and the Apr il 23, 2007 order denying the mot i o n t o disqualify the trial judg e. We dis miss Bow shot and Pondoff’s issue complaining of the motion in lim ine. Al l pe nd ingmot ion s in

thi s c a us e , 1 2- 07 -0 01 18 -C V, are ov e rr ule d a s mo ot.



### S AM GRI FF I T H J ustice

Opinion delivere d Fe bruar y 18, 2009. Pane l co ns i s t ed of

Wor t hen , C. J. , Gri

f f i t h, J. , an d Hoyl e, J.

(PUBL I SH)