NUMBER 13-23-00125-CV

COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE ROBERT H. CRANE

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Robert H. Crane contends that the Hidalgo 

County Probate Court erred by denying his plea to the jurisdiction. According to relator, 

the Hidalgo County Probate Court lacks jurisdiction to allow real party in interest Sasha 

S. Crane, the independent administrator of the estate of Scott Clement Crane, deceased,

to serve subpoenas on relator. 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 

47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. 

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial 

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re 

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two 

requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. However, “[a] trial court abuses its 

discretion if it enters a void order, and mandamus will issue to remedy the void order 

regardless of whether the relator has an adequate remedy by appeal.” In re J.R., 622 

S.W.3d 602, 604 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2021, orig. proceeding [mand. dism’d]).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the record, the response filed by the real party in interest, the reply, and the applicable 

law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden of proof to obtain mandamus 

relief. Relator contends that: (1) the estates code prohibits an order allowing discovery in 

the probate proceeding because the decedent’s estate was handled through an 

independent administration; (2) the decedent’s estate was closed as a matter of law; and 

(3) the probate court lacks plenary jurisdiction. However, although § 402.001 of the 

estates code limits the probate court’s supervision over an independent administration, it 

does not deprive the probate court of jurisdiction over matters relating to the estate. See
3

Estate of Savana, 529 S.W.3d 587, 593 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.)

(discussing TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 402.001); see also In re Estate of Wetzel, No. 05-20-

01104-CV, 2022 WL 1183294, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 21, 2022, no pet.) (mem. 

op.). Moreover, the record does not clearly indicate that the probate estate was fully 

disposed given that there are pending claims against the estate or debts alleged against 

the estate. See In re John G. Kenedy Mem’l Found., 159 S.W.3d 133, 144 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2004, orig. proceeding). In this regard, a matter related to a 

probate proceeding includes “a claim for money owed by the decedent,” and relator 

contends that he “is insisting that he receive equal dividends in the distribution of

proceeds from the sale of assets of businesses that he has owned equally with [the 

decedent].” See TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 31.001(4); see also id. § 31.002(c) (defining 

matters related to probate proceedings). Further, the record does not indicate that any 

party is assailing an order or judgment for which plenary power has expired. See In re 

Jacky, 506 S.W.3d 550, 555 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding). 

Finally, although relator asserts that there are two other different cases pending in which 

the subject discovery could be sought, the matters as presented here do not invoke issues 

pertaining to dominant jurisdiction. 

In sum, on this record and at this time, relator has not met his burden to obtain 

relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay that we previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.10 (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective 
4

until the case is finally decided.”). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus without 

prejudice.

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the

17th day of May, 2023.