Court Opinion

ID: 9639533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:22:12.916651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:02.969741
License: Public Domain

Concurring opinion by:
PAUL W. GREEN, Justice.
The majority affirms the judgment of the trial court on limitations grounds. I concur in the result, but would affirm instead on the basis that the underlying 1999 judgment, declaring the 1993 will a forgery and that Martin Rose, Jr. died intestate, is res judicata of Stovall’s claim. That judgment incorporated jury findings that the 1986 and 1989 wills had been revoked, and the judgment has not been revoked, and the judgment has not been appealed or otherwise set aside.
A probate proceeding is an action in rem and is binding on the world. Mooney v. Harlin, 622 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex.1981). And insofar as the world is concerned, Martin Rose, Jr. died intestate. Without setting aside the 1999 judgment, Stovall’s claim is barred.