### 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 . 

## M EMO RA NDUM OPI NI ON ON REHE A RI NG 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 o n Re he aring b y Ju stice R od rigu ez After cons ide ri ng appel lee Trac y June Ly nch' s moti on for re hear ing , w e d e n y the moti on; h ow ev er , w e w it hdr aw our memor andum opi nio n and jud g ment of October 9, 2008, and substitu te th e followi ng to ma ke no ndisp ositive cl arif ication s. I. I NT RODUC TI ON Appel lan ts, Peg g y

Je an (Ly nch) Sackhei m and P atr ic ia Ann ( Ly nch) Al der man, fil ed a pet it ion i n the Kenda ll C o u n ty Co urt atLaw for a n ac count ing and dis tr ibu ti on of the est ate o f their

mother , Bo bbi e S. Ly nch, and for the r e m o val o f appel lee , Tr acy

Ju neBy t hei r f i r st i ssue, app el 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 appel 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 ha ve st an di ng i n t hi s c as e. H ow eve r, t hi s i s s ue i s no t 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 . 4 7 .1

. 2 Lynch, as inde pen den t executrix

. T he Ken dall Coun ty Court at L aw transf erred th e case to t he 216t h D is tr ic t C our t of Kenda ll C ounty , whe re it w as then dis mis sed. Ap pel lan ts challen ge the dism issal, cont end ing the dist ri c t c o u rt 's order is v oid for lack of subject matter j ur is dic ti on. W e v acat e the di str ic t c our t' s o rd er and re mand w it h i n st ructi ons to 1
re t u rn t h e ca s e t o t h e K e n d a ll Co u n t y Co u rt a tL a w. II. F A CTUA L B A CKGRO 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 Ke nda ll C oun ty Court at L aw. T he Ke nda ll 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 ed a peti ti on i n the Kenda ll Co u nty C our t atLaw for
acc ounti ng and dis tr ibu ti on of t he est ate pursuant to sec ti ons 149A and 149B o f the Tex as Probate Cod e and for r emov al of the indep endent 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) , 149 C (V er non Su pp. 2 0 0 8 ). Appell ee f il e d a p le a t o t h e j u r i s d i c 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 thatappel lan ts lac ked sta ndi ng to seek an a cc o u n ti ng and dis tr ibu ti on of the est ate. Ins tead of ru li ng 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 L a w transf erred th e case to the 216 th District Court of Kend all Coun ty. Af

ter a he aring o n the plea to the jurisdiction and mot ion in limine , the district
cour t s ust ain ed appe ll ee's moti ons and di smi ss ed appe ll ants ' peti ti on for acc ounti ng and3

distribut ion an d for remo v al of the ind epe nde nt ex ecut rix on th e ba sis that ap pellan ts did
n o t h a ve st a n d in g. III
. S TA NDA RD 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 9 06, 9 09 (Te x
. App .–Corp us Christi 20 04, p et. den ied). Any orde rs entered by

a c our t lac ki ng subj ect matter jur is dic ti on are v oid

. See B ro wning v. Pr ostok , 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 c our

t t o dec ide a c ase, " and it "is nev er pr esumed and c annot be w aiv ed." Tex

. Ass 'n of B us. v. T

ex. Ai r Con tr ol Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 440, 44 3- 44 ( 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. IV. A N AL Y S IS Byt he i r s ec on d i s s ue , ap pe l l an ts a r g ue t ha t th e 21 6t h D i s tr i c t C ou rt of K en dall Cou nty does not hav e jur is dic ti on ov er probate matters. Appel lee co unters t hat t he probate code does not ex pli ci tl y div estthe dis tr ic t cour

t of j ur is dic ti on. See T EX
. P ROP
. C OD E A NN
. § 115 .00 1 (a-1) (Ve rnon S upp
. 200 8) (e x plainin g tha t the list of procee dings byor against a truste e or conce rning a trust in subsect ion (a) is not exhaustive). In Ke n d a ll County , t he c ounty co urt atl aw

ex er ci ses j ur is dic ti on ov er probate matters. See T EX
. G OV ' T C OD E A NN . § 25.0003 (d ) ( Ver 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 pro bat e cod e, in cou nties where the re are
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" ' 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, ' an d ' P roc ee di ng s for prob ate' are 2 s y n o n y m o u s a n d in c l u d e a m a tte r o r p ro c e e d i n g r e 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 ). 4 admin ist ra ti ons shal l 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 ROB
. C OD E A NN . § 5(c) (Ve rn on Su pp. 200 8). Th eref ore, 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 (T e x. 1993) ( "In t hose count ies
w her e there ar e statut or y court s ex er ci si ng probate j ur is dic ti on, s uch cour ts share or ig ina l jur is dic ti on ov er

probate proce edi ng s w it h the consti tuti onal county court

. . . .") ; Hailey v. Si gla r , 194 S.W .3d 74, 77 (Tex

. App.–Tex ar kana 2006, pet. deni ed) (c oncl udi ng that in a count y w it hout a s tatut or

y probate cour

t, the c ounty

co urt atl aw

had or igi nal probate jur is dic ti on) ; Lee v

. Her sey , 223 S.W .3d 4 39, 4 44- 45 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2 0 0 6 , pet

. den ied) (same ). On m o t io n for rehea ring, appellee argues that this Court shou ld v iew app ellant s' claims in th e prop er co nte x t to conclu de tha t jurisdiction w as prop erly in the 21 6th Distri ct Court of Kend all Count y

beca use a ppe llant sou ght dete rmina tions regarding app ellee's duti es, r espon si bil it ies , pow ers, and li abi li ty as tr ust ee ov er tw o tes tamentar y tr ust s c re ated by thei r mother

. In order

to do as appel lee r eq uest s, w e mustco nst ru e appel lan ts' ca uses of acti on as tr ustmatte rs
. W e dec li ne to do s o. App e ll a n t s' petition inv olves probate mat ters regarding the adm inistration of their mother 's est ate inc lud ing a re q uest for an acc ounti ng and dis tr ibu ti on and the remov al of appel lee as ex ecut ri x ; t her efore, under se cti on 5( c) , t hei r peti ti on mus t hav e be fil ed and heard i n the co unty

co urt atl aw
. See T EX
. P ROB
. C OD E A NN . §§ 5( c) , 149 A, 1 49B, andSec t i on 1 49 A pr ov i des t hat i fan i ndepe ndent execu t or doe s " 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 er son m ak i ng the de m and m ay com pel com pl i ance by an act i on i n t he c o u n ty 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. § 149A ( Ver non 2003) ( em phasi s added )

. Pur suant t o sect i on 149B, " a pe r son i nt er est ed i n t he e st 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 ti o n 3 o f t h i s 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) ( em phasi s added )

. Sect i on 149C st at es, " T he c ou nty c ou rt , as t hat t er m i s def i ned by Sect i on 3 of

t hi s code , on i t s own m ot i on o r on m ot i on o fany i nt er est ed p er son, af t er t he i ndepe ndent execu t or has b een ci t ed b y per sonal ser v i ce t o an swer at a t i m e an d pl ace f i xed i n t he n ot i ce, m ay r em ov e an i n d e p e n d e n t e x e c u to r . .
. ." I d. § 149C ( Ver non Supp. 200 8) ( em phasi s add ed)

. Under sect i on 3 of t he pr obat e cod e, " ' C ount y C our t ' and ' Pr obat e C our t ' ar e sy nony m ous t er m s and den ot e .
. . cour t s cr eat ed 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 ).

W e n o te , h o w e v e r, th a t a n y tru s t i s s u e s w o u l d b e p ro p e rly fil e d i n th e d i s tri c t c o u rt. See T EX
. P ROP
. 4 C O D E A NN
. § 115. 001( a) ( Ver non Supp. 2008) ( pr ov i di ng t hat " a di st r i ct cour t has or i gi nal and e x c l us i ve j uri s di c t i on ove r al l proc ee di ng s by or ag ai ns t a t rus t ee an d a l l proc ee di ng s co nc ern i ng t rus t s " ). 5 149C

. M or eov er , w e decl ine to cons tr ue appel lan ts' peti ti on fil ed i n the co unty co urt atl aw 3
as inv olv ing a t rust w hen t he onl y menti on of a t ru st is a req uestto show proof that the tr ust s w er e i n fact funded. B ecaus e the Kenda ll C ount y Co u rt at Law has or ig ina l jur is dic ti on ov er

thes e prob a te matte rs , 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 Hailey , 194 S .W .3d at 77. Ther efore, w e c oncl ude t hat t he 4 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. V. C ONCL US I ON W e v acat e the order

of the 2 16th Di str ic t Cou rtof Kendal l Cou nty and re mand the
cas e to the dis tr ic t cour t w it h inst ru cti ons to ret ur n the case to the Kendall C ounty C our t at Law, w here jurisdiction rem ains as to prob ate mat ters includin g the issue of stand ing i n this
cas e.
NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n on Reh ear ing del iv er ed and fil ed th is 25th day

of Nov ember , 200 8.