Opinion ID: 1790918
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: trinity universal's liability

Text: Trinity Universal contends that it is not liable for the $12,000.00 paid from the estate to Mr. Currie pursuant to the probate court's order. Trinity contends that its liability under the bond is limited to situations where Ms. Holt breached her promise to well and truly, faithfully perform . . those duties of an administratrix of the estate. In support of this position, Trinity argues that Ms. Holt's payment of the legal fees out of the estate pursuant to a court order that was not superceded, but was subsequently reversed, was fully consistent with her duties as administratrix of the estate. Thus, Trinity concludes that Ms. Holt has taken no action in contravention of her promise to faithfully perform her duties as administratrix. In the absence of any such breach of her duties, Trinity maintains that it cannot be held liable under its surety bond, even though Ms. Holt may be liable, in her individual capacity, to make restitution to the estate. Since we believe that Ms. Holt's actions after the reversal of the judgment ordering payment of attorney's fees to Currie constituted a breach of her duty as administratrix of the estate, we disagree with Trinity Universal's contentions, and hold the surety to be liable under its bond. Section 222 of the Texas Probate Code provides that when the court orders someone removed from the position of representing the estate, that order shall further require, as to all the estate remaining in the hands of a removed person, delivery thereof to the person or persons entitled thereto, or to one who has been appointed and has qualified as successor representative . . . In the event that the removed representative fails to deliver all of the estate that has not been validly expended, then the successor may bring suit on the bond or bonds of the predecessor in his own name and capacity, for all the estate that came into the hands of the predecessor and has not been accounted for by him. Texas Probate Code section 225 (emphasis added). Cf. Ward v. Maryland Casualty Co., 140 Tex. 124, 166 S.W.2d 117 (1942); Batsell v. Richards, 80 Tex. 505, 16 S.W. 313 (1891); Sargent v. Wallis, 67 Tex. 483, 3 S.W. 721 (1887). Thus, Ms. Holt had a duty as administratrix, arising at the time of her removal and continuing until the time of her final discharge, to deliver to Mr. Drake, as executor, all of the estate that had not been validly expended. It has been settled, in previous litigation, that the $12,000.00 paid from the estate to Mr. Currie was not a proper expense of the estate. Thus, the $12,000.00 was a part of the estate that Ms. Holt had the duty, as administratrix, to tender to her properly qualified successor. Ms. Holt, however, failed to deliver this money to Mr. Drake. By failing to deliver this money, Ms. Holt failed to fulfill those duties placed upon her as administratrix, and thus breached the conditions of the bond. Trinity Universal, as her surety, became liable for her failure to deliver the $12,000.00 that had been improperly paid from the estate. See section 225 of the Texas Probate Code. Trinity Universal has also argued that the probate court lacked the power to exercise personal jurisdiction over the surety in this case, since the instant hearing was held pursuant to a remand in a prior case in which Trinity Universal was not a party. We do not pass upon this contention, as Trinity Universal failed to make any objection to the jurisdiction of the probate court, and thus waived any complaint concerning personal jurisdiction. We have long recognized that, while [j]urisdiction of the subject matter exists by operation of law only. . . jurisdiction of the person can be conferred by consent or waiver. Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Pugh, 141 Tex. 539, 174 S.W.2d 598, 600 (1943). Furthermore, since the probate court had subject matter jurisdiction over the estate's claim against Trinity Universal pursuant to section 225 of the Texas Probate Code, the joinder of the surety in the instant hearing, in the absence of objection, did not constitute reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of civil appeals is reversed only insofar as it failed to hold Currie liable for the $12,000.00 paid to him from the estate. We render judgment that Currie is jointly liable, with Holt, for the reimbursement of the estate for the $12,000.00, plus interest. In all other respects, the judgment of the court of civil appeals is affirmed.