In re Estate of Velvin

Full title: IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LINDA JOYCE VELVIN, DECEASED

Court: Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

Date published: Sep 18, 2012

No. 06-12-00055-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 18, 2012)

Opinion

No. 06-12-00055-CV

09-18-2012

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LINDA JOYCE VELVIN, DECEASED

Jack Carter

On Appeal from the County Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 39,821, 39,821A

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is the second proceeding before this Court involving the same situation. In the probate of this relatively small estate, the County Judge decided sua sponte and without notice to remove the administrator, appointed two attorneys to represent a minor child who is a beneficiary under the will, and an attorney to act as the new administrator. In the mandamus decided by this Court August 1, 2012, in cause number 06-12-00062-CV, we directed the County Judge to transfer this proceeding to the County Court at Law of Bowie County so that it could consider contested matters involving the removal of Kyle Davis as administrator of the estate, the appointment of a successor administrator, and the appointment of an attorney ad litem for the minor.

This parallel appeal was brought on behalf of Davis, and asks this Court to determine whether the County Judge erred by removing, sua sponte, Davis as administrator of the estate without a hearing and without the statutorily required notice. In his prayer, he asks this Court to reverse the order of removal and remand the case to the proper court, i.e., the County Court at Law of Bowie County, for further proceedings.

In the mandamus proceeding, we held that the County Judge had abused his discretion by failing to transfer the contested matters as required by statute for decision by the proper court and that appeal would not be a meaningful remedy because allowing a county court to proceed despite a mandatory requirement to transfer would be a waste of judicial resources. We, therefore, granted the mandamus and directed the County Judge to transfer the contested matters to the County Court at Law of Bowie County.

Under these circumstances, the issues raised in the appeal are moot, as these matters are now before the County Court at Law of Bowie County for decision, and we conclude the appeal should therefore be dismissed.

We dismiss the appeal as moot.

Jack Carter

Justice