PROBATE LAW
SPRING 2020
West
Tex. LTC Partners, Inc. v. Collier, 2020 Tex. App. W.L. 103597; LEXIS 190 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020)
Creditors’
Claims in Guardianship: A ward’s guardian provided the required statutory
notice (see Texas Estates Code §1153.003) to a nursing home because the
nursing home was purportedly owed approximately $6,000 from the ward’s estate. The notice directed the nursing home to
present a proper claim within 120 days of receipt of the notice, or risk the
claim being barred by law. Instead of
presenting a proper claim, the nursing home filed suit against the guardian in
the wrong court. The case was
transferred to the correct court, but the ward died while the suit was
pending. The guardianship court then
dismissed the claim. The guardian was
subsequently appointed independent administratrix of the ward’s estate, and the
nursing home submitted an authenticated claim to the administratrix in the
estate proceeding. The administratrix
objected to the claim and asserted the claim was barred because the nursing
home failed to file a proper claim in the guardianship. The
nursing home filed suit in the estate proceeding, and the trial court signed a
take nothing judgment in favor of the estate. Held: The appellate court
affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
The nursing home’s claim does not “spring back to life” after the death
of the ward. The process for creditors
in a guardianship proceeding is perilous.
Failing to file a claim in accordance with the Texas Estates Code may
result in a permanently barred claim.
In
the Estate of Burns,
2020 Tex. App. W.L. 354940; LEXIS 553
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2020)
Limitations
of Anti-Lapse: The decedent left his residuary estate to a
cousin, Lynn, who predeceased him.
Lynn’s sisters (and co-executrices of her estate) sought declaratory
relief, as follows: 1) the Texas anti-lapse statute protected the gift to Lynn
because Lynn was a “descendant of the decedent’s mother;” 2) the court should
presume the decedent did not intend to die intestate and 3) the decedent
intended to exclude all others from the gift to Lynn, except Lynn’s
beneficiaries and successors to her estate.
Held: Under Texas law, a gift to a beneficiary who predeceases
the testator lapses unless the anti-lapse rule applies. If
a devisee who is a descendant of the testator or a descendant of a
testator's parent fails to survive the testator, the descendants of the
devisee who survived the testator (by 120 hours) take the devised property in
place of the devisee. Tex. Est.
Code § 255.153(a). However, in
this case, the anti-lapse rule did not extend to protect the gift to the
decedent’s cousin because she was not a descendant of the decedent’s parent. Furthermore, the will was not ambiguous and
there was no language in the will compelling a result different from the general
rule under Texas law. Therefore, the
residuary estate passed to decedent’s heirs at law. The appellate court affirmed the decision of
the trial court.
Website designed and developed by Daniel Hofheinz