In the case involving the estates of Ramiro and Alvida Mae Aguilar, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas addressed a jurisdictional challenge regarding the transfer of a lawsuit from El Paso County to Bexar County. Following the deaths of Ramiro and Alvida in 2012, their son Anthony initially sought to have his sister Margaret appointed as the independent executor of their estates, leading to disputes among the siblings. Anthony filed a lawsuit in the El Paso 327th District Court against Margaret, accusing her of mismanaging estate assets, which resulted in a default judgment against her due to her failure to respond.
The Bexar County Probate Court subsequently intervened, transferring the El Paso lawsuit to its jurisdiction, setting aside the default judgment, dismissing Anthony's claims, and sanctioning him for frivolous filing. Anthony appealed this decision, arguing that the Bexar County court lacked the authority to transfer the case under the Texas Estates Code. However, the Fourth Court of Appeals upheld the transfer, ruling that it was valid under section 34.001 of the Estates Code, which permits the probate court to take jurisdiction over related cases. The appeal to the Eighth District Court was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, determining that any challenge to the transfer must originate from the Bexar County litigation.
The Fourth Court of Appeals remanded a sanctions order to the probate court due to the lack of an evidentiary hearing before sanctions were imposed. In December 2012, the Aguilars filed a second lawsuit in El Paso's County Court at Law No. 6 against Margaret, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and wrongful death related to their mother. Margaret sought to transfer the case to probate court and requested sanctions against the Aguilars for a frivolous lawsuit, but the Aguilars nonsuited their case before a ruling could be made. In August 2013, the Aguilars initiated a third lawsuit in the 205th Judicial District Court, asserting a wrongful death claim against Margaret and her husband, alleging their mother died due to an intestinal impaction after her husband’s funeral. This case was also transferred to the Bexar County Probate Court, which dismissed the wrongful death claims as lacking legal basis. The San Antonio Court of Appeals subsequently found the transfer improper, noting the claim did not relate to probate proceedings and was against Margaret in her individual capacity. The case was returned to El Paso, where the 205th District Court again dismissed the lawsuit under Rule 91a. The dismissal was affirmed by the El Paso Court, which found no legal duty owed by the defendants to sustain a wrongful death claim. In February 2016, the Aguilars filed a fourth lawsuit in the 384th District Court, targeting Margaret, her attorneys, an accountant, and a friend, alleging misrepresentations and breaches of fiduciary duty, along with conspiracy to defraud them of estate assets. The Aguilars also implicated Bexar County Probate Court Judge Tom Rickhoff in their claims but did not name him as a defendant. Margaret moved to dismiss under Rule 91a and sought a venue transfer to Bexar County. The attorneys filed various motions, while the Aguilars counterclaimed against Margaret in probate court and filed third-party claims against her attorneys.
Counterclaims and third-party claims against Margaret assert she misappropriated funds from her parents’ estates and, along with her attorneys, concealed information and unjustly enriched themselves during probate proceedings. The Aguilars demand over a million dollars in damages and a constructive trust on attorney fees. In March 2016, Margaret sought to transfer a case from the 384th District Court to the probate court due to related claims, which the probate court granted on June 7, 2016. However, during a hearing on June 8, 2016, Anthony argued that the transfer order was void because the probate court lacked jurisdiction, claiming the estate proceedings were closed, and the lawsuit was unrelated to those proceedings. The district court verbally denied the motions to dismiss from the Appellees Leighner and Bayern but did not issue a written order.
The following day, the Bexar County probate court set aside the district court's oral ruling and consolidated the cases. From June 2016 to October 2019, the probate court issued four orders dismissing claims against the Appellees and awarding attorney fees to Leighner and Bayern. The Aguilars attempted to appeal these dismissals, but the Fourth Court of Appeals ruled that the orders were not final judgments and thus were interlocutory, as they did not resolve all claims and parties involved.
The Aguilars contested the validity of the Bexar County Probate Court’s transfer order in appeals to the Fourth Court of Appeals, arguing that the estates were already “closed” at the time of transfer. The Fourth Court consistently rejected this argument, clarifying that the estates remained open because no final distribution had occurred, and pending claims were still unresolved.
Despite notifications about the June 2016 transfer order, the Aguilars' lawsuit stayed on the 384th District Court's docket, where the court issued multiple notices regarding potential dismissal for lack of prosecution. Margaret’s attorney responded to these notices, asserting the case's transfer to Bexar County and later filed a “Notice of Transfer” with the certified transfer order. In August 2020, after the Bexar County probate court closed the estates and dismissed all claims, Margaret’s attorney requested the El Paso court to remove the case from its docket.
In response, the Aguilars submitted an “Answer to Alleged Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Case,” arguing the transfer was improper under the Estates Code, as their lawsuit was not related to probate proceedings and was directed against Margaret in her independent capacity. They highlighted procedural deficiencies, asserting that the probate court did not hold a required hearing and that proper transfer protocols were not followed by the El Paso clerk. The Aguilars noted the absence of a transfer order from the 384th District Court and the lack of necessary docket entries documenting the transfer.
During a hearing in August 2020, the 346th District Court reviewed Margaret’s motion to close the El Paso case. The parties concurred that the Bexar County probate court had adjudicated all Aguilars' claims and closed the estate. The Appellees contended that any further proceedings in the El Paso Court would amount to an “impermissible collateral attack” on the probate court’s orders, while the Aguilars maintained that the probate court lacked jurisdiction due to the allegedly void transfer order, rendering all dismissals void.
The Appellees argue that regardless of the validity of the probate court's transfer order, the appropriate way to contest it is through an appeal to the Fourth Court of Appeals, following the probate court's final order. The 346th District Court subsequently issued an order stating that it had considered the matter sua sponte, confirming that the case was properly transferred to the Bexar County probate court under Section 34.001 of the Estates Code. The court found that the Appellees had adequately demonstrated that the probate court had resolved all claims against them, and any further proceedings in the 346th District Court would constitute an impermissible collateral attack on those orders. Consequently, the court instructed the El Paso District Clerk to remove the case from its docket. After their motion for a new trial was denied, the Aguilars filed a notice of appeal from this order. The Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming a lack of jurisdiction, and this request is granted for the reasons provided.
On appeal, the Aguilars raise eight issues centered on the validity of the probate court's transfer order. They assert that the probate court lacked the authority to transfer the case, arguing that the 346th District Court lawsuit was unrelated to probate proceedings and initiated against Margaret in her individual capacity, thus rendering the transfer void. They further contend that the transfer was ineffective due to non-compliance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 86 to 89, making the transfer and subsequent orders void. Additionally, the Aguilars argue that the Bexar County probate judge was disqualified from hearing their claims due to being named as a co-conspirator in their petition, which they claim violated their due process rights.
The Appellees contend that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the Aguilars’ claims because the 346th District Court's order to remove the case from its docket is not a final, appealable order, the transfer order was valid, any challenge should have been made via an appeal to the Fourth Court of Appeals, and allowing the Aguilars to relitigate in the 346th District Court would be an impermissible collateral attack on the probate court’s judgment. The court agrees with the Appellees on the lack of jurisdiction regarding the Aguilars' challenges to the transfer order. The parties dispute whether the 346th District Court's order constitutes a final appealable order, with the Appellees asserting it merely administratively closed the Aguilars’ lawsuit, while the Aguilars argue it should be treated as a final order, claiming the transfer was void.
When a probate court transfers a matter from a district or county court under the Estates Code, the original court loses jurisdiction to act further on the matter. This principle is supported by case law, such as In re Estate of Aguilar and In re CC. M Garza Ranches Ltd. P’ship, which affirm that probate courts have exclusive jurisdiction over guardianship-related claims, depriving other courts of jurisdiction. However, the original court retains jurisdiction if the probate court's transfer order is deemed improper. For example, in In re Estate of Aguilar, the court ruled that if the transfer was void, the original court could hear the claims.
Section 34.001 of the Texas Estates Code grants probate court judges the authority to transfer related lawsuits to their court and consolidate them with ongoing proceedings. This transfer must be initiated by the probate court judge, who has the exclusive authority to do so, as established in cases like In re BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP. Additionally, other courts lack the authority to prevent such transfers, as affirmed in Henry v. LaGrone and Lanier v. Stem, which held that district courts cannot issue prohibitory orders against a probate court's transfer decision. Thus, the authority to transfer resides solely with the probate court.
Aguilar v. Bexar County probate court involves a challenge by the Aguilars against a transfer order issued by a probate court in Bexar County. They argue that the probate court lacked authority to issue the transfer under the Estates Code because the lawsuit in El Paso was unrelated to the probate proceedings. However, the Aguilars did not demonstrate how the court had jurisdiction to review the Bexar County order, as Texas law stipulates that appellate jurisdiction is confined to specific districts. Appeals concerning Bexar County courts belong to the Fourth Court of Appeals, while those from El Paso County fall under the Eighth Court of Appeals. The Aguilars have previously filed multiple appeals in the Fourth Court contesting the validity of the probate court’s transfer orders on the same grounds, indicating that any current challenge should also be directed to that court.
Additionally, the Aguilars assert that their lawsuit was never properly transferred to the probate court due to the El Paso District Clerk's failure to adhere to the procedural requirements outlined in Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rules 86 to 89, which mandate the preparation of a transcript and the transfer of original papers.
The claim that the Bexar County proceedings were void due to non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure should have been addressed in an appeal to the Fourth Court of Appeals from the probate court’s final judgment, not in the current court. The Aguilars did not raise this issue at the time of the probate court's transfer order and participated in the Bexar County proceedings for about four years without objection, leading to a waiver of the right to contest the proceedings. Relevant case law, including O’Quinn v. Tate and Ornelas v. Dodgen Equip. Co., supports this waiver principle.
Regarding the disqualification of the probate court judge, the Aguilars argued that naming the judge as a co-conspirator in their petition constituted a conflict of interest, rendering the judge constitutionally barred from presiding. While the issue of a judge's disqualification can be raised at any time, the court highlighted its lack of authority to rule on the disqualification of a Bexar County judge. The Aguilars' motions to recuse the judge were denied, and their subsequent attempts to appeal those denials were also dismissed by the Fourth Court of Appeals due to lack of jurisdiction, as such appeals can only be made following a final judgment. Consequently, any challenge to the judge's disqualification should have been made in the probate court. The appeal by the Aguilars has been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
