Opinion filed July 16, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-13-00147-CV

___________

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF 

TERRY GLENN ARNOLD, DECEASED

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 20598-11

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal concerns the appointment of an independent administrator of 

the Estate of Terry Glenn Arnold in Ector County, Texas. In a single issue, 

G. Brad Carter, Appellant, complains that the trial court was without authority 

to appoint an independent administrator in the face of a will naming Appellant 

as the independent executor. We disagree and affirm the order of the trial court.
2

Background

Terry Glenn Arnold passed away in June 2011. Under the terms of his 

will, he left all of his property to his father or, if his father predeceased him, to 

his “heirs-at-law.” Mr. Arnold named his father as the independent executor and 

named his best friend, Mr. Carter, as the successor independent executor. His 

only survivors were his brother, Mr. Larry Walls, and two sisters, Ms. Dala 

Barron and Ms. Kelli Billings.

On June 24, 2011, Mr. Carter filed an application to probate the will and 

to be named the independent executor of Arnold’s Estate and issued letters 

testamentary. He also filed an application to be appointed as temporary 

administrator of the Estate. Mr. Carter was appointed as the temporary 

administrator of the Estate by the trial court on July 1, 2011, for a period of 180 

days, meaning his appointment expired on December 28, 2011.

Approximately a year later, in December 2012, Mr. Bobby Walls, the 

decedent’s nephew, filed an Application for Letters of Administration. A

hearing on that application was heard on December 17, 2012. Mr. Bobby Walls 

was the only witness. The trial court entered an Order Granting Independent 

Administration and Authorizing Letters of Administration Pursuant to

Section 145(e) of the Texas Probate Code. Mr. Carter filed a timely motion for 

new trial that was heard and denied by the trial court, and this appeal was timely 

filed.

Standard of Review

We first observe that a trial court’s ruling on a probate application is 

generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. In re Estate of Boren, 

268 S.W.3d 841, 846 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. denied). The trial court 

abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without 
3

reference to any guiding rules or principles. Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 

838–39 (Tex. 2004).

Discussion

There is a mandatory hierarchy of appointment for persons seeking to be 

appointed as the executor of a decedent’s estate. If a person named as an 

independent executor in a decedent’s will comes forward within the statutory 

period for probating a will, offers such will for probate, and applies for letters 

testamentary, then the trial court has no discretionary power to refuse to issue 

letters to the named executor unless such person is disqualified. TEX. EST. CODE 

ANN. § 304.001 (West 2014).1 One of the enumerated disqualifications applies

when a person is “unsuitable.” Id. § 304.003(5). If a trial court determines that 

a person is disqualified under one or more of the provisions of Section 304.003, 

it has the statutory authority to refuse to appoint the individual as an independent 

executor, notwithstanding that the person has been specifically named as the 

independent executor in a decedent’s will. Id. §§ 304.001, .003.

There are no findings of fact or conclusions of law in the record before 

us. And, absent those express findings or conclusions in a bench trial, it is 

“implied that the trial court made all the findings necessary to support its 

judgment.” Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990). And,

although Mr. Carter asserts that Mr. Bobby Walls presented no evidence that 

Mr. Carter was “legally disqualified” from being appointed independent

 

1We note that the Texas Estates Code did not become effective until after this case was filed. 

However, because the legislative act adopting the Estates Code and repealing the provisions of the 

Texas Probate Code was a recodification only, not a substantive change in law, we refer to the Estates 

Code for ease of reference in this opinion. See Act of May 26, 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., ch. 680, §§ 1, 

10–12, 2009 Tex. Gen. Laws 1512, 1731–32 (effective Jan. 1, 2014). 
4

executor of the Estate, the record reveals otherwise. Indeed, we need only 

observe that the record reflects that Mr. Carter failed to file the mandatory sworn 

accounting, which a temporary administrator is required to do once his 

appointment has expired. EST. § 452.151(1), (2). This failure is ample authority 

for the trial court’s actions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Mr. 

Carter’s single issue is overruled.

We affirm the order of the trial court.

DAVID CHEW

JUSTICE

July 16, 2015

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Bailey, J., and Chew.2

Willson, J., not participating.

 

2David Chew, Retired Chief Justice, Court of Appeals, 8th District of Texas at El Paso, sitting 

by assignment.