ACCEPTED
12-15-00058-CV
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
3/10/2015 9:12:49 AM
CATHY LUSK
CLERK
CAUSE NO. 12-15-00058-CV
FILED IN
12th COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
IN THE
3/10/2015 9:12:49 AM
CATHY S. LUSK
COURT OF APPEALS Clerk
FOR THE
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
AT
TYLER, TEXAS.
IN RE JEANETTE B. DAVIDSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF
THE ESTATE OF GARY L. DAVIDSON, DECEASED,
Relators,
Original Proceeding from the County Court-at-Law
of Anderson County, Texas, Hon. Jeff Doran, Presiding.
FIRST AMENDED
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Thomas R. McLeroy, Jr.
Bar No. 13766800
P. O. Box 668
Center, Texas 75935
(936) 598-2701
FAX (936) 598-6086
mcleroylaw@sbcglobal.net
ATTORNEY FOR RELATOR
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
The following named persons are parties to this proceeding, to-wit:
Relators:
Jeanette B. Davidson, Individually and
as Independent Executrix of
the Estate of Gary L. Davidson, Deceased.
Respondent:
Hon. Jeff Doran,
Judge, County Court-at-Law of Anderson County, Texas
500 North Church Street, Suite 11
Palestine, Texas 75801
Real Party in Interest:
The Estate of Stone Haynes, Deceased
Ben Haynes, Independent Executor
COUNSEL OF RECORD
Attorney for Relator:
Thomas R. McLeroy, Jr.
Bar No. 13766800
P. O. Box 668
Center, Texas 75935
(936) 598-2701
FAX (936) 598-6086
mcleroylaw@sbcglobal.net
page i
Attorney for Real Party in Interest:
Jeffrey L. Coe
P. O. Box 1157
Palestine, Texas 75802-1157
Bar No. 24001902
(903) 723-0331
FAX (903) 741-9229
jeff@coelawfirm.com
page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page vii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page ix
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page ix
CONTENT OF RECORD.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page ix
ISSUES PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page x
ISSUE NO. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page x
(Whether Respondent Abused his Discretion
in failing to Grant Relator’s Transfer Motion). . . . . . . . . . . page x
STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 1
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 6
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 6
B. MANDAMUS RELIEF IS WARRANTED TO CORRECT THE
TRIAL COURT’S REFUSAL TO GRANT RELATORS’ MOTION
TO TRANSFER VENUE OF THE PROBATE PROCEEDING TO
SAN AUGUSTINE COUNTY, THE COUNTY OF THE
DECEDENT’S DOMICILE AND RESIDENCE AT THE TIME OF
HIS DEATH.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 7
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 9
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 10
VERIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 11
APPENDIX.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page I
page iii
TAB 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page II
(Clerk’s Certification of Copies). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page II
TAB 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page V
(Docket Sheet, Cause No. 15063). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page V
TAB 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page VIII
(Application to Probate Will).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page VIII
TAB 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XVIII
(Answers to Interogatories). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XVIII
TAB 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XXX
(Proof of Death and Other Facts). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XXX
TAB 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XXXIII
(Order Probating Will). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XXXIII
TAB 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XXXVII
(Inventory). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XXXVII
TAB 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XLIV
(Motion to Transfer Venue). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XLIV
TAB 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XLVII
(Response to Defendants’
Motion to Transfer Venue). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XLVII
TAB 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page LIII
(Reply to Response to
Motion to Transfer Venue). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page LIII
TAB 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page LXII
(Amended Reply to
Motion to Transfer Venue). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page LXII
TAB 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page LXXI
(Relator’s Letter Brief). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page LXXI
TAB 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page LXXVI
(Letter from Respondent).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page LXXVI
TAB 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page LXXX
(Relator’s Letter Brief). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page LXXX
page iv
TAB 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page LXXXIII
(Letter Brief from Haynes).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page LXXXIII
TAB 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page LXXXV
(Relator’s Letter Brief). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page LXXXV
TAB 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XC
(Letter from Respondent).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XC
TAB 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XCIV
(Order Denying Venue Transfer Motion).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XCIV
TAB 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XCVI
(Letter Brief from Real Party in Interest). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XCVI
TAB 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XCVIII
(Petition in Cause No. 11,953). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page XCVIII
TAB 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CII
(Amended Petition in Cause No. 11,953). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CII
TAB 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CVI
(Motion to Transfer Venue
in Cause No. 11,953). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CVI
TAB 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CIX
(Defendant’s Answer
in Cause No. 11,953). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CIX
TAB 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXIV
(Amended Reply to Ben Haynes’ Response
to Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue
in Cause No. 11,953). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXIV
TAB 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXXIII
(Response to Defendant’s Motion to
Transfer Venue in Cause No. 11,953). . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXXIII
TAB 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXXIX
(Amended Motion to Transfer Venue
in Cause No. 11,953). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXXIX
page v
TAB 27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXXXIII
(Second Amended Petition
in Cause No. 11,953). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXXXIII
TAB 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXLI
(TEXT OF FORMER TEXAS PROBATE CODE §5A).. . . . page CXLI
TAB 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXLIV
(TEXT OF TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE
& REMEDIES CODE §15.001).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXLIV
TAB 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXLV
(TEXT OF TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE &
REMEDIES CODE §15.016.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXLV
TAB 31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXLVI
(TEXT OF TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE &
REMEDIES CODE §15.0642). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXLVI
TAB 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXLVII
(TEXT OF TEXAS PROBATE CODE §6). . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXLVII
TAB 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page CXLVIII
(TEXT OF TEXAS PROBATE CODE §8A). . . . . . . . . . . page CXLVIII
page vi
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATE CONSTITUTIONS:
TEX. CONST. art. V, §6.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page ix
STATUTES:
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN., §15.006 (Vernon 2002). . . . . . . . . page 5
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN., §15.016 (Vernon 2002). . . . . . . . . page 7
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN., §15.0642 (Vernon 2002). . . . . . . page ix,
page 8
TEX. GOV. CODE ANN., §22.221 (Vernon 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page ix
TEX. PROB. CODE ANN., §6 (Vernon Supp. 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 3, page 7
TEX. PROB. CODE ANN., §8A (Vernon Supp. 2013). . . . . page 3, page 8, page 9
COURT RULES:
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page ix
TEX. R. APP. P., 9.4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 10
TEX. R. CIV. P., 87. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 4, page 7
CASES:
In re Graham, 251 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. App. –Austin, 2008) (orig. proceeding)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 7
In re Lemons, 281 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. App. –Tyler, 2009) (orig. proceeding)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 6
In re Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 998 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. 1999) (orig.
proceeding). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 6
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004). . . . . . . . . . page 6
page vii
In re Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc., 271 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. 2008) (orig.
proceeding). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 6
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 6
REPEALED STATUTES:
Act of June 17, 2011, 83rd Leg. ch. 1338, §§1.04, 1.06 and 2.54(c). . . . . page iii
Act of June 19, 2009, 81st Leg., RS, ch. 1351, §12(h). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page ii
TEX. PROB. CODE ANN., §5A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 2
page viii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter arises in the course of the administration of a decedent’s estate
in Cause No. 15,063 pending in the County Court-at-Law of Anderson County,
Texas, styled, The Estate of Stone Haynes, Deceased. At all material times, the
Honorable Jeff Doran, the Respondent, was the judge presiding in said court.
The issue in dispute involves the proper venue of the probate court with
supervision of the administration of the decedent’s estate. Relators bring this
original proceeding in order to correct the error of Respondent in denying
Relators’ motion to transfer the venue of these proceedings to San Augustine
County, Texas, the county of the decedent’s domicile and residence at the time
of his death and, consequently, the county of mandatory venue under the Texas
Probate Code.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus under TEX. CONST.
art. V, §6, TEX. GOV. CODE ANN., §22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004), and TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN., §15.0642 (Vernon 2002).
CONTENT OF RECORD
Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7, a certified copy of every document that
is material to relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in the underlying
proceedings is contained in the Appendix to this application under Tabs 1 - 27.
No transcript of testimony is included because no testimony was adduced in
connection with the matter complained of.
page ix
ISSUES PRESENTED
ISSUE NO. 1
(Whether Respondent Abused his Discretion
in failing to Grant Relator’s Transfer Motion)
Relator filed her motion to transfer venue of the probate proceedings in
The Estate of Stone Haynes, Deceased, from Anderson County, the county in
which an administration of the decedent’s estate is pending, to San Augustine
County, the county of the decedent’s domicile and residence at the time of his
death. Although the Real Party in Interest admitted that the decedent was a
resident of San Augustine County at the time of his death and the trial court’s
judgment admitting the decedent’s will to probate recited that the decedent was
a resident of San Augustine County at the time of his death, the Respondent
denied Relator’s motion. The issue presented is:
Whether the Respondent’s refusal to grant Relators’ motion to transfer
venue to the county of decedent’s undisputed domicile and residence at the time
of his death constitutes a clear abuse of discretion for which mandamus relief is
warranted.
page x
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In this case, which was filed on July 24, 2012, under Cause No. 15,063 in
the County Court-at-Law of Anderson County, Texas, Benjamin Stone Haynes,
who is the same person as Ben Haynes, (hereinafter referred to as “Haynes”),
applied for probate of the last will and testament of Stone Haynes, deceased, and
for Letters Testamentary. (Tab 3, pp. VIII - XVII, Application to Probate Will
and for Issuance of Letters Testamentary). The sole devisee under the decedent’s
will was The Stone Haynes Living Trust. (see Tab 3, page XII, Last Will and
Testament of Stone Haynes, Article Four). Thereafter, on July 30, 2012, before
his appointment as executor of the estate, Haynes, as trustee of The Stone
Haynes Living Trust, filed suit in Cause No. 11,953 in the same court in which
this probate matter is pending, seeking to recover the balance alleged to be due
on the note executed by Relator, Jeannette B. Davidson, and the decedent whose
estate the Relator represents. (Tab 20, pp. XCVI - CI, Original Petition for Suit
on Note). On August 3, 2012, in furtherance of the probate application, he filed
answers to interrogatories in this suit which affirmed that, at the time of his
death, Stone Haynes, the decedent, was domiciled in and had his fixed place of
residence in San Augustine County, Texas. (Tab 4, pp. XVIII - XXIX, Answers
to Applicant’s First Set of Interrogatories, Response to Interrogatory #5). He,
also, filed an affidavit stating that the decedent was domiciled and had a fixed
place of residence in San Augustine County, Texas, on the date of his death.
(Tab 5, pp. XXX - XXXII, Proof of Death and Other Facts, Item No. 2). A
hearing on the application was held on August 8, 2012, after which the
Respondent entered a judgment admitting the will to probate and appointing
Haynes’ as an independent executor of the estate. (Tab 6, pp. XXXIII - XXXVI,
Order Probating Will and Authorizing Letters Testamentary, page 1). The
judgment entered by Respondent recited that “. . .Decedent died in San
Augustine County, Texas on May 12, 2012. . .” and that “. . .this Court has
jurisdiction and permissive venue over the estate as the Decedent was domiciled
in San Augustine County, Texas at the time of his death.” Id. at Tab 6, pg.
XXXIV. After qualifying as the executor, Haynes returned the required
inventory showing the estate to consist only of a parcel of real estate situated in
Sabine County, Texas, an old pickup truck, household furnishings, personal
possessions and a claim against Relators for the balance alleged to be due on the
a promissory note. (Tab 7, pp. XXXVIII - XLIII, Inventory, Appraisement and
List of Claims).
On August 24, 2012, after his appointment as executor, Haynes amended
his pleadings in the suit on the note to omit The Stone Haynes Living Trust and
to substitute the Estate of Stone Haynes, Deceased, as the plaintiff. (Tab 21, pp.
CII - CV, First Amended Original Petition for Suit on Note). The pleadings
alleged that venue of the suit on the note was proper in Anderson County under
a previously repealed statute, Texas Probate Code § 5A1. (cited at Tab. 21, pg.
CIII, First Amended Original Petition, paragraph 3).
1
TEX. PROB. CODE ANN., §5A, was repealed by Act of June 19, 2009, 81st Leg., RS, ch. 1351,
§12(h), effective as of September 1, 2009. The repealed statute originally dealt, not with venue,
but with which courts have jurisdiction over matters appertaining and incident to an estate
and other probate court jurisdiction.
page 2
Citation in the suit on the note was subsequently served on Relators and,
in due order of pleading, Relators filed their motions to transfer venue of both
this probate suit and the suit on the note. (Tab 8, pp. XLIV - XLVI, Tab 22, pp.
CVI - CVIII). Relators’ motion in this suit alleged that Stone Haynes, the
decedent, died in San Augustine County, Texas, on May 17, 2012, and that, at the
time of his death, the decedent was domiciled in and was a resident of San
Augustine County, so that venue of the probate matter was mandatory in San
Augustine County, Texas, under TEX. PROB. CODE ANN., §6(1) and (2)2. (Tab 8,
page XLV - XLVI , Motion to Transfer Venue). They requested the transfer of
this case to San Augustine County, Texas, pursuant to TEX. PROB. CODE ANN.,
§8A. On February 22, 2013, Haynes filed his response to Relators’ motions to
transfer venue. (Tab 9, pp. LVII - LII, Response to Defendant’s Motion to
Transfer Venue). Haynes response did not specifically deny that the decedent’s
residence at the time of his death was in San Augustine County, but, rather,
argued that the judgment admitting the will to probate in Anderson County was
a final, appealable order at the time it was entered and had become
unappealable by the time Relators filed their venue transfer motions so that
Relators were precluded from raising the issue of the decedent’s residence. Id.
Relators promptly filed their reply to Haynes’ response, as well as an amended
reply, arguing that the Probate Code venue provisions were mandatory and that
2
Sections 6 and 8A of the Texas Probate Code were amended and repealed, effective January 1, 2014, by
Act of June 17, 2011, 83rd Leg. ch. 1338, §§1.04, 1.06 and 2.54(c). For ease of reference, citations in this
Application are to the Texas Probate Code in effect on the material dates of the actions complained of and their
text is reproduced at Tabs 32 and 33 in the Appendix to this Application for a Writ of Mandamus.
page 3
Probate Code, § 8A authorized a venue transfer at any time before the estate was
closed. (Tab 10, pp. LIII - LXI, Tab 11, page LXII - LXX).
A hearing on Relators’ motion in this case was held on March 25, 2013,
and the Respondent requested the parties to submit supplemental authorities
and arguments on an issue that the parties did not raise. Relators promptly
submitted their supplemental brief again asserting that Probate Code § 8A
authorized the venue transfer that Relators requested. (Tab 12, page LXXI -
LXXV). On May 10, 2013, the Respondent requested the parties to inform the
court whether the issue of the decedent’s residence at the time of his death was
contested. (Tab 13, pp. LXXVI - LXXIX). Respondent informed the parties
that, notwithstanding Haynes’ interrogatory responses, his affidavit of Proof of
Death and Other Facts, Respondent’s own finding embodied in the Order
Probating Will and Authorizing Letters Testamentary and Haynes’ failure to
specifically deny the venue facts, as required by TEX. R. CIV. P., 87(3)(a), the
court found nothing in the case to contradict the allegation in Haynes’
Application to Probate Will and for Issuance of Letters Testamentary that the
decedent’s residence was Anderson County. Respondent, also, suggested that
different venue rules might apply to a trust. Id. Relators responded to the
Court’s inquiry on May 15, 2013, detailing the admissions and court findings in
the record that established the decedent’s residence in San Augustine County,
the fact that the issue was uncontested and the fact that no trust was yet entitled
to possession of the decedent’s estate. (Tab 14, pp. LXXX - LXXXII).
page 4
On May 17, 2013, Haynes responded to the Court’s inquiry by tendering
an amended pleading in the suit on the note that once again joined The Stone
Haynes Living Trust as a plaintiff. (Tab 15, pp. LXXXIII - LXXXIV, Tab 27,
pp. CXXXIII - CXL, Second Amended Original Petition for Suit on Note).
Haynes misrepresented to the court that the changes made by the addition of the
trust to the other suit authorized the court to deny Relators’ motion in this case,
despite the clear declaration of TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN., §15.006 that
venue determinations are made on the basis of facts existing at the time the cause
of action accrues, and not at some later date. (Tab 15, page LXXXIV). On May
20, 2013, Relators responded to Haynes’ amended pleadings and assertions,
pointing out that only the venue of the probate matter was before the court and
that, in any event, the addition of the trust to the suit on the note affords no new
grounds for denial the venue transfer motion in either this probate matter or the
the other suit. (Tab 16, pp. LXXXV - LXXXIX). On September 9, 2013,
Respondent advised the parties that he would deny Relators’ motion to transfer
venue. (Tab 17, pp. XC - XCIII). Finally, on February 10, 2015, Respondent
signed an order denying the motion. (Tab 18, pp. XCIV - XCV). This
application is made for a writ of mandamus compelling Respondent to vacate the
order denying a venue change and to enter an order granting Relators’ motion
and transferring this suit to the County Court of San Augustine County, Texas,
the court with probate jurisdiction in the proper venue.
page 5
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW:
A mandamus will issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion where there
is no adequate remedy by law. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124,
135 – 136 (Tex. 2004); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). With
respect to the resolution of factual issues or other matters committed to the trial
court’s discretion, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that
of the trial court. Walker, 833 at 839. But a trial court has no discretion in
determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. Walker, 827 at
839. If the trial court fails to analyze or apply the law correctly, it commits an
abuse of discretion. Walker, 827 at 840. In this case, because the trial court’s
action was not based upon the resolution of disputed factual issues, its
application of the law is not entitled to the deference extended to matters
committed to the trial court’s discretion. See Walker, 827 at 839-840, (holding
that a trial court’s determination of the legal principles controlling its ruling is
treated less deferentially than its resolution of factual issues). And, because this
case involves the trial court’s failure to correctly apply a mandatory venue
statute, Relators are not required to establish the lack of an adequate appellate
remedy. In re Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 998 S.W.2d 212, 216 (Tex. 1999)
(orig. proceeding); In re Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc., 271 S.W.3d 270,
271 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Lemons, 281 S.W.3d 643, 646 (Tex. App.
–Tyler, 2009) (orig. proceeding).
page 6
B. MANDAMUS RELIEF IS WARRANTED TO CORRECT THE TRIAL
COURT’S REFUSAL TO GRANT RELATORS’ MOTION TO
TRANSFER VENUE OF THE PROBATE PROCEEDING TO SAN
AUGUSTINE COUNTY, THE COUNTY OF THE DECEDENT’S
DOMICILE AND RESIDENCE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH.
There were no factual issues for the trial court to resolve in this case.
Haynes’ admissions contained in his response to interrogatories and his “Proof
of Death and Other Facts,” the findings of Respondent in the order admitting the
decedent’s will to probate and Haynes’ failure to specifically deny the venue
facts pled by Relators in their venue transfer motion, as required by TEX. R. CIV.
P., 87(3)(a), establish that the county of residence of the decedent, Stone Haynes,
at the time of his death was San Augustine County and not Anderson County.
Because it was undisputed that the decedent maintained his domicile and place
of residence in San Augustine County at the time of his death, venue of these
proceedings was proper under TEX. PROB. CODE ANN., §6, only in San Augustine
County.
The Texas Probate Code specifically provided that:
“Wills shall be admitted to probate, and letters testamentary or of
administration shall be granted: (1) in the county where the
decedent resided, if the decedent had a domicile or fixed place of
residence in this State.” TEX. PROB. CODE ANN., §6(1) [Emphasis
added].
This statute provides for mandatory venue. In re Graham, 251 S.W.3d
844, 847 (Tex. App. –Austin, 2008) (orig. proceeding). Actions governed by a
mandatory venue statute must be brought in the county required by that statute.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN., §15.016. The admissions contained in
page 7
Haynes’ responses to interrogatories and in his affidavit of proof of death and
other facts, together with the trial court’s determination that the county of
decedent’s domicile and residence at the time of his death was San Augustine
County, would have justified either the trial court’s refusal in the first instance
to admit the will to probate in Anderson County, or its transfer of the probate
matter to San Augustine County. It did neither.
The Texas Probate Code specifically provides a method for correcting
improperly placed venue. If, on the application of any interested person before
the final decree, it is made to appear to the probate court that the proceeding
was commenced in a court without priority of venue, the court is required to
transfer the proceeding to the proper county. TEX. PROB. CODE ANN., §8A(a).
The statute does not limit the review to an appeal of the order admitting the
estate to probate or an appeal of the order closing the estate, but expressly
provides that venue may be transferred at the request of any interested person
before the final decree closing the estate. Relators filed their venue transfer
motions in due order of pleadings but, although there was no dispute that the
decedent’s domicile and residence at the time of his death was San Augustine
County, Respondent denied Relators’ motion. Respondent’s failure to analyze
and apply the applicable law correctly amounted to a clear abuse of discretion.
The court’s determinations under the mandatory venue statute are
properly reviewed by mandamus. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.,
§15.0642. Because the failure to grant Relators’ motion to transfer venue to the
page 8
county of proper mandatory venue was a clear abuse of discretion, this court
should grant the Relators’ application and issue a writ of mandamus directing
Respondent to vacate the order overruling Relators’ venue transfer motion that
was entered on the 10th day of February, 2015, to grant Relators’ motion and
to order these proceedings transferred in accordance with TEX. PROB. CODE
ANN., §8A(a) to the court of proper jurisdiction in San Augustine County, Texas,
the county of proper venue, by transmitting to the County Court of San
Augustine County, Texas, or other proper court in such county, the original file
in such case, together with certified copies of all entries in the judge's probate
docket theretofore made.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons, Relators request this court to:
(1) grant the Petition for Writ of Mandamus;
(2) direct the Respondent to:
(a) vacate the order overruling Relators’ Motion to Transfer
Venue”;
(b) grant Relators’ Motion to Transfer Venue; and
(c) order these proceedings to be transferred to the County Court
of San Augustine County, Texas, or other court of proper
jurisdiction in San Augustine County, Texas, by transmitting
to the proper court the original file in such case, together with
certified copies of all entries in the judge's probate docket
page 9
theretofore made; and
(3) Grant Relators such other and further relief to which they may be
entitled.
Respectfully Submitted:
Thomas R. McLeroy, Jr.
P. O. Box 668
Center, Texas 75935
(936) 598-2701
FAX (936) 598-6086
BY:
Attorney for Relator.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
In compliance with TEX. R. APP. P., 9.4(3), I certify that the word-count of
the foregoing brief is 2,507 words.
Attorney for Relator
page 10
VERIFICATION
APPENDIX
(To Petition for Writ of Mandamus)
page I
TAB 1
(Clerk’s Certification of Copies)
page II
page III
page IV
TAB 2
(Docket Sheet, Cause No. 15063)
page V
page VI
page VII
TAB 3
(Application to Probate Will)
page VIII
page IX
page X
page XI
page XII
page XIII
page XIV
page XV
page XVI
page XVII
TAB 4
(Answers to Interogatories)
page XVIII
page XIX
page XX
page XXI
page XXII
page XXIII
page XXIV
page XXV
page XXVI
page XXVII
page XXVIII
page XXIX
TAB 5
(Proof of Death and Other Facts)
page XXX
page XXXI
page XXXII
TAB 6
(Order Probating Will)
page XXXIII
page XXXIV
page XXXV
page XXXVI
TAB 7
(Inventory)
page XXXVII
page XXXVIII
page XXXIX
page XL
page XLI
page XLII
page XLIII
TAB 8
(Motion to Transfer Venue)
page XLIV
page XLV
page XLVI
TAB 9
(Response to Defendants’
Motion to Transfer Venue)
page XLVII
page XLVIII
page XLIX
page L
page LI
page LII
TAB 10
(Reply to Response to
Motion to Transfer Venue)
page LIII
page LIV
page LV
page LVI
page LVII
page LVIII
page LIX
page LX
page LXI
TAB 11
(Amended Reply to
Motion to Transfer Venue)
page LXII
page LXIII
page LXIV
page LXV
page LXVI
page LXVII
page LXVIII
page LXIX
page LXX
TAB 12
(Relator’s Letter Brief)
page LXXI
page LXXII
page LXXIII
page LXXIV
page LXXV
TAB 13
(Letter from Respondent)
page LXXVI
page LXXVII
page LXXVIII
page LXXIX
TAB 14
(Relator’s Letter Brief)
page LXXX
page LXXXI
page LXXXII
TAB 15
(Letter Brief from Haynes)
page LXXXIII
page LXXXIV
TAB 16
(Relator’s Letter Brief)
page LXXXV
page LXXXVI
page LXXXVII
page LXXXVIII
page LXXXIX
TAB 17
(Letter from Respondent)
page XC
page XCI
page XCII
page XCIII
TAB 18
(Order Denying Venue Transfer Motion)
page XCIV
page XCV
TAB 19
(Letter Brief from Real Party in Interest)
page XCVI
page XCVII
TAB 20
(Petition in Cause No. 11,953)
page XCVIII
page XCIX
page C
page CI
TAB 21
(Amended Petition in Cause No. 11,953)
page CII
page CIII
page CIV
page CV
TAB 22
(Motion to Transfer Venue
in Cause No. 11,953)
page CVI
page CVII
page CVIII
TAB 23
(Defendant’s Answer
in Cause No. 11,953)
page CIX
page CX
page CXI
page CXII
page CXIII
TAB 24
(Amended Reply to Ben Haynes’ Response
to Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue
in Cause No. 11,953)
page CXIV
page CXV
page CXVI
page CXVII
page CXVIII
page CXIX
page CXX
page CXXI
page CXXII
TAB 25
(Response to Defendant’s Motion to
Transfer Venue in Cause No. 11,953)
page CXXIII
page CXXIV
page CXXV
page CXXVI
page CXXVII
page CXXVIII
TAB 26
(Amended Motion to Transfer Venue
in Cause No. 11,953)
page CXXIX
page CXXX
page CXXXI
page CXXXII
TAB 27
(Second Amended Petition
in Cause No. 11,953)
page CXXXIII
page CXXXIV
page CXXXV
page CXXXVI
page CXXXVII
page CXXXVIII
page CXXXIX
page CXL
TAB 28
(TEXT OF FORMER TEXAS PROBATE CODE §5A)
page CXLI
page CXLII
page CXLIII
TAB 29
(TEXT OF TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE
& REMEDIES CODE §15.001)
Effective:[See Text Amendments]
Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated Currentness
Civil Practice and Remedies Code(Refs & Annos)
Title 2. Trial, Judgment, and Appeal
Subtitle B. Trial Matters
Chapter 15. Venue (Refs & Annos)
Subchapter A. Definitions; General Rules
§ 15. 001. Definitions
In this chapter:
(a) “Principal office” means a principal office of the corporation, unincorporated
association, or partnership in this state in which the decision makers for the
organization within this state conduct the daily affairs of the organization. The mere
presence of an agency or representative does not establish a principal office.
(b) “Proper venue” means:
(1) the venue required by the mandatory provisions of Subchapter B [FN1] or
another statute prescribing mandatory venue; or
(2) if Subdivision (1) does not apply, the venue provided by this subchapter or
Subchapter C. [FN2]
CREDIT(S)
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 138, § 1, eff. Aug. 28, 1995.
[FN1] V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 15.011 et seq.
[FN2] V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 15.031 et seq.
(c) 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
page CXLIV
TAB 30
(TEXT OF TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE &
REMEDIES CODE §15.016)
Effective:[See Text Amendments]
Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated Currentness
Civil Practice and Remedies Code (Refs & Annos)
Title 2. Trial, Judgment, and Appeal
Subtitle B. Trial Matters
Chapter 15. Venue (Refs & Annos)
Subchapter B. Mandatory Venue (Refs & Annos)
§ 15.016. Other Mandatory Venue
An action governed by any other statute prescribing mandatory venue shall be
brought in the county required by that statute.
CREDIT(S)
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985.
Current through the end of the 2013 Third Called Session of the 83rd Legislature
(c) 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
page CXLV
TAB 31
(TEXT OF TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE &
REMEDIES CODE §15.0642)
Effective:[See Text Amendments]
Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated Currentness
Civil Practice and Remedies Code (Refs & Annos)
Title 2. Trial, Judgment, and Appeal
Subtitle B. Trial Matters
Chapter 15. Venue (Refs & Annos)
Subchapter D. General Provisions (Refs & Annos)
§ 15.0642. Mandamus
A party may apply for a writ of mandamus with an appellate court to enforce the
mandatory venue provisions of this chapter. An application for the writ of mandamus
must be filed before the later of:
(1) the 90th day before the date the trial starts; or
(2) the 10th day after the date the party receives notice of the trial setting.
CREDIT(S)
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 138, § 5, eff. Aug. 28, 1995.
Current through the end of the 2013 Third Called Session of the 83rd Legislature
(c) 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
page CXLVI
TAB 32
(TEXT OF TEXAS PROBATE CODE §6)
Effective: September 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013
Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated
Texas Probate Code
Chapter I. General Provisions
§ 6. Venue: Probate of Wills and Granting of Letters Testamentary and of
Administration
Wills shall be admitted to probate, and letters testamentary or of administration
shall be granted:
(1) in the county where the decedent resided, if the decedent had a domicile or
fixed place of residence in this State;
(2) if the decedent had no domicile or fixed place of residence in this State but
died in this State, then either in the county where the decedent's principal estate was
at the time of the decedent's death, or in the county where the decedent died; or
(3) if the decedent had no domicile or fixed place of residence in this State, and
died outside the limits of this State:
(A) in any county in this State where the decedent's nearest of kin reside; or
(B) if there are no kindred of the decedent in this State, then in the county
where the decedent's principal estate was situated at the time of the decedent's
death.
Acts 1955, 54th Leg., p. 88, ch. 55, eff. Jan. 1, 1956. Amended by Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 1338 (S.B. 1198), § 1.04,
eff. Sept. 1, 2011.
REPEAL
page CXLVII
TAB 33
(TEXT OF TEXAS PROBATE CODE §8A)
Effective: September 1, 2011
Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated Currentness
Texas Probate Code (Refs & Annos)
Chapter I. General Provisions (Refs & Annos)
§ 8A. Transfer of Venue in Probate Proceeding
(a) Transfer for Want of Venue. If it appears to the court at any time before the final
decree in a probate proceeding that the proceeding was commenced in a court which
did not have priority of venue over such proceeding, the court shall, on the
application of any interested person, transfer the proceeding to the proper county by
transmitting to the proper court in such county the original file in such case, together
with certified copies of all entries in the judge's probate docket theretofore made, and
the proceeding in such county shall be completed in the same manner as if the
proceeding had originally been instituted therein; but, if the question as to priority of
venue is not raised before final decree in the proceedings is announced, the finality
of such decree shall not be affected by any error in venue.
(b) Transfer for Convenience. If it appears to the court at any time before a probate
proceeding is concluded that it would be in the best interest of the estate or, if there
is no administration of the estate, that it would be in the best interest of the heirs or
beneficiaries of the decedent's will, the court, in its discretion, may order the
proceeding transferred to the proper court in any other county in this State. The clerk
of the court from which the proceeding is transferred shall transmit to the court to
which the proceeding is transferred the original file in the proceeding and a certified
copy of the index.
CREDIT(S)
Acts 1955, 54th Leg., p. 88, ch. 55, eff. Jan. 1, 1956. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4754, ch. 833, § 1, eff. Sept.
1, 1983; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 786, § 1, eff. Aug. 31, 1987. Subsec. (c)(2) amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch.
1060, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Subsecs. (a), (b), (c), and (e) amended by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., ch. 1170, § 2.01, eff. Sept.
1, 2007. Amended by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., ch. 602, § 1, eff. June 19, 2009. Redesignated from V.A.T.S. Probate Code,
§ 8(c)(1), (2) and amended by Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 1338 (S.B. 1198), § 1.06, eff. Sept. 1, 2011.
Current through the end of the 2011 Regular Session and First Called Session of the 82nd Legislature
(c) 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
page CXLVIII
in Re Jeanette B. Davidson, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Gary L. Davidson
Combined Opinion