Case Name: Read KILLGORE, Appellant, v. ESTATE of Roberta M. KILLGORE, Deceased, Appellee
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1978-06-14
Citations: 568 S.W.2d 182
Docket Number: No. 16017
Parties: Read KILLGORE, Appellant, v. ESTATE of Roberta M. KILLGORE, Deceased, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 568
Pages: 182–187

Head Matter:
Read KILLGORE, Appellant, v. ESTATE of Roberta M. KILLGORE, Deceased, Appellee.
No. 16017.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.
June 14, 1978.
William H. Russell, San Antonio, for appellant.
Waynene C. Combest, Veitch & Britt, San Antonio, for appellee.

Opinion:
OPINION
MURRAY, Justice.
The single question in this case is whether the probate court has jurisdiction to remove an independent executor who is an incompetent.
On April 28,1977, appellant's mother, Roberta M. Killgore, died, and appellant, Read Killgore, was named independent executor in the decedent's will. On June 30, 1977, appellant, Read Killgore, was adjudged non compos mentis and a temporary guardian was appointed. On August 31, 1977, the order of the court, admitting the will to probate and authorizing letters testamentary was entered, said order stating that ". . . in said will, decedent named Read Killgore as Independent Executor, to serve without bond, who is duly qualified and not disqualified by law to act as such and to receive Letters Testamentary; . . " On October 19,1977, the court set aside that order on the grounds that Read Killgore had been adjudged non compos mentis on June 30, 1977, and appointed a temporary administrator with the will annexed.
We set out certain provisions of the Probate Code as originally enacted in 1955 and as amended in 1957, which are deemed particularly pertinent here:
Sec. 3, Definitions and Use of Terms When used in this Code, unless otherwise apparent from the context:
(aa) 'Personal Representative' or 'Representative' includes executor, independent executor, administrator, temporary administrator, guardian, and temporary guardian, together with their successors. The inclusion of independent executors herein shall not be held to subject such representatives to control of the courts in probate matters with respect to settlement of estate except as expressly provided by law.
Sec. 145(h)
When an independent administration has been created, and the order appointing an independent executor has been entered by the county court, and the inventory, appraisement, and list aforesaid has been filed by the executor and approved by the county court, as long as the estate is represented by an independent executor, further action of any nature shall not be had in the county court except where this Code specifically and explicitly provides for some action in the county court.
Sec. 78
No person is qualified to serve as an executor or administrator who is:
(b) An incompetent.
Sec. 222. Removal
(b) With Notice.
The court may remove a personal representative on its own motion, or on the complaint of any interested person, after the personal representative has been cited by personal service to answer at a time and place fixed in the notice, when:
(5) He becomes an incompetent, or is sentenced to the penitentiary, or from any other cause becomes incapable of properly performing the duties of his trust.
We think the Waco Court of Civil Appeals has correctly stated the test used to determine the extent to which the probate court can exercise its hold over an independent executor in the ease of Bell v. Still, 389 S.W.2d 605 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1965), adopted at 403 S.W.2d 353.
In interpreting any section of the Probate Code containing the word "executor," the courts have had to determine whether or not the limitation expressed in such section applies to both an ordinary executor and an independent executor. Prior to the 1955 revision of the Code, it was generally held that only those statutes which dealt with matters other than the "settlement of the estate" applied to an independent executor. Roy v. Whitaker, 92 Tex. 346, 48 S.W. 892 (1898); Woodward, Some Developments in the Law of Independent Administrations, 37 Texas L.Rev. 828 (1959). The test under the present Sec. 3(aa) and Sec. 145, as stated in Bell v. Still, supra, appears as follows:
. (1) Whether removal of the independent executor for the assigned reasons requires the probate court to take action in connection with 'settlement' of the estate, and (2) whether the Code 'specifically and explicitly' provides for that action in the [county court].
Sections 149 and 214-217 of the Code provide the only method for removal of an independent executor by the Probate Code. These statutes specifically apply to independent executors.
The fact that the probate court cannot remove an incompetent independent executor is of doubtful wisdom. Our Supreme Court concluded in Bell v. Still, supra, at page 353:
The matter is a difficult one because doubts exist as to the wisdom of a policy under which an independent executor, accused of gross mismanagement of an estate, is not subject to removal by the probate court as any other executor or administrator. This, however, is a matter within the control of the Legislature. It is our opinion that the Probate Code did not change the rule previously existing that the probate court did not have this power unless the independent executor, properly appointed and qualified, was required to post bond and could not or would not do so. We do not have here the question as to whether the district court has this power of removal.
We hold that Section 222 of the Code does not specifically and explicitly apply to independent executors.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and appellant, Read Killgore, is ordered reinstated as independent executor of the Estate of Roberta M. Killgore, deceased.