Court Opinion

ID: 9605697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:40:51.713909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:29.830642
License: Public Domain

JACKSON B. SMITH, JR.,* Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion affirming the trial court’s order granting Reliant’s application for a temporary anti-suit injunction.
I join Justice Mirabais dissent, and I write separately to emphasize that, when the legislature enacted sections 5A and 5B of the Probate Code,1 I believe it intended to place all matters “pertaining to and incidental to an estate” in the probate courts. I believe that, until now, all courts have agreed with this conclusion.
To insure that its intent was made clear and properly enforced, the legislature authorized the statutory probate court to transfer to itself any cases pertaining to or incidental to an estate pending in other courts, specifically district courts. It appears that this authorization to transfer gave the court the authority to transfer from any court in Texas a case or cases to itself because the statute does not restrict the authorization to courts located in the same county as the probate court ordering the transfer. Thus, the effect of the statute is to confer venue on the statutory probate court for the entire state on matters pertaining to or incidental to an estate.
To hold that the statutory probate court in Hidalgo County in this case does not have venue, as the majority states, would, in effect, mean that such court could only transfer to itself eases from other courts located in Hidalgo County. This, I believe, defeats the intent of the legislature.
To the contention that section 15.007 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code2 conflicts with and controls over provisions in the Probate Code pertaining to venue, I see no conflict because there are no venue provisions in the Probate Code applicable to this case. The legislature has made it *895clear that it wants all matters pertaining to and incidental to an estate placed under the “umbrella” and authority of statutory probate courts. So be it.
For these reasons, I believe the September 6, 2002 order of the trial court should be reversed, and I dissent from the majority opinion.

 The Honorable Jackson B. Smith, Jr., retired Justice, Court of Appeals, First District of Texas at Houston, participating by assignment.

. Tex. Prob.Code Ann. §§ 5A, 5B (Vernon 2003).

. Tex Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 15.007 (Vernon 2002).