Opinion
04-21-00455-CV
06-15-2022
IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF MARTIN L. ROBERTSON, an Incapacitated Person
From the County Court, Kerr County, Texas Trial Court No. G18-22 Honorable Robert Lee Kelly, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
This case concerns the payment of $1,021.54 from ward Martin L. Robertson's estate for work that appellee Melinda Luna performed for Robertson's benefit. Appellant Tracey Mather (Robertson's former guardian) appeals the trial court's order authorizing payment for Luna's work. Because Mather lacks standing and no live controversy exists, we affirm.
Background
On April 1, 2021, Mather, as permanent guardian of Robertson's person and estate, filed an application for sale of real and personal property requesting approval for the sale of Robertson's home and two vehicles located on his property. On April 21, 2021, the trial court approved the application.
On May 21, 2021, Mather filed a report of sale of real property describing a proposed sale of the home for $500,000 in a cash transaction. On June 3, 2021, the trial court signed a decree of sale for real property. On June 9, 2021, Mather filed a report of sale of personal property advising the trial court that the two vehicles had been sold for significantly less than the amounts listed on the application for sale of real and personal property. On June 14, 2021, the trial court signed a decree confirming the sale of the vehicles.
On June 22, 2021, Mather received a call from one of Robertson's neighbors questioning whether Robertson's home was being sold and asking about the selling price. Mather informed the neighbor that the home was being sold for $500,000, and, in response, the neighbor contacted the trial court to protest that amount. According to the neighbor, the property should be sold for around $1,000,000.
On June 29, 2021, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing regarding the sale of the property. Mather testified to the depressed condition of the house. She further testified that she contacted a realtor, Hunter Carter, for his opinion on the property, and the realtor offered her $500,000 cash for the home. Mather and Carter had transacted in the past. Carter testified that he believed the price he offered was appropriate for the property. After hearing this testimony-as well as other evidence and testimony submitted by Robertson's neighbors-the trial court's concern regarding the sale of the property resulted in it withdrawing the decree of sale of real property. The trial court appointed Luna as Robertson's attorney ad litem to obtain an appraisal for the property and stated it was "putting [Luna] in charge of the sale of the house." Luna was only appointed regarding the sale of the house and her appointment was not to interfere with Mather's duties and responsibilities. Luna obtained an appraisal of the property indicating an appraised value between $800,000 and $823,100. A local realtor agreed to list the property for sale between $925,000 and $975,000 and expressed confidence she could get close to that amount.
Carter was the same purchaser who bought the two vehicles for significantly below their Kelly Blue Book value.
On July 23, 2021, the trial court held another status conference. Given the large disparity between the $500,000 proposed sale and the $800,000 appraisal, the trial court believed it necessary to discuss Mather's removal as guardian. The trial court stated it was going to discharge Mather as guardian of Robertson's estate (not of the person), and "on a temporary basis make Miss Luna the temporary guardian of Mr. Robertson's estate." At the end of the hearing, Luna inquired about her compensation, and the trial court indicated Luna was to charge her regular hourly attorney rates. The trial court also stated that Luna's title was converted from attorney ad litem to temporary guardian ad litem.
On August 5, 2021, Mather filed a motion to set aside the order appointing temporary guardian of the estate. Mather-at the advice of her attorney, Anna Torres-refused to take any action regarding Robertson's estate until resolution of her complaint about Luna's appointment. At an August 26, 2021 status hearing, the trial court indicated it acted to "stop the attempted mismanagement of the estate."
On September 3, 2021, Luna filed an application seeking $1,021.54 in fees accrued through August 31, 2021. On September 7, 2021, Mather filed an objection to the payment of the fees on the basis that the appointment of Luna as temporary guardian was unsupported by Texas law. On September 16, 2021, Mather filed an application for leave to resign as guardian of person and estate and for immediate appointment of a successor guardian.
On September 24, 2021, the trial court held another hearing. At that hearing, the trial court accepted Mather's resignation, appointed Luna the permanent guardian of Robertson's person and estate, and approved the payment of Luna's fee application.
At Mather's request, the trial court entered findings of facts and conclusions of law. Noting irregularities and the appearance of impropriety stemming from Mather's management of the home sale, the trial court found Luna's appointment was necessary to protect Robertson's interests. The detailed findings and conclusions essentially identify Torres as the root of the trial court's concern: The trial court "concluded that the problem was not Mather but the Ward did need protection from Torres." Further, the trial court found Torres regularly "usurped and undermined Mather's authority as guardian"; exhibited a "disrespectful and contemptuous attitude"; and exhibited "willful disobedience to [the] Court's orders." In contrast, the trial court found Luna "did an excellent job protecting the Ward's best interest and her services were absolutely necessary and her fees were more than reasonable." The trial court concluded Mather lacked standing to challenge its award of Luna's fees after Mather's resignation. Mather subsequently filed this appeal complaining over the trial court's approval of Luna's fee application.
Standing and Mootness
Standard of Review
We review questions regarding subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Beasley, 598 S.W.3d 237, 240 (Tex. 2020). "A plaintiff has standing when it is personally aggrieved, regardless of whether it is acting with legal authority; a party has capacity when it has the legal authority to act, regardless of whether it has a justiciable interest in the controversy." Nootsie, Ltd. v. Williamson Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 925 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. 1996) (emphasis in original). Where a person does not have capacity to sue, such as the ward here, the law grants a representative the capacity to sue on his behalf. See Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc., v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845, 848-49 (Tex. 2005).
Standing requires a real controversy between the parties which will actually be determined by the judicial declaration sought. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993). "An opinion issued in a case brought by a party without standing is advisory because rather than remedying an actual or imminent harm, the judgment addresses only a hypothetical injury." Id. at 444. We lack jurisdiction to render advisory opinions. Id.
We are also barred from deciding a case that has become moot during the pendency of litigation. Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012). A case becomes moot if the issues presented are no longer "live" or if the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Id. "Put simply, a case is moot when the court's action on the merits cannot affect the parties' rights or interests." Id.
Analysis
After Mather's resignation was accepted by the trial court, Mather could not act in any capacity as Robertson's guardian. When Mather filed her appeal, the law granted Luna-not Mather-the capacity to act for Robertson. See Austin Nursing Ctr., 171 S.W.3d at 849. For this reason, when Mather filed her notice of appeal, there existed no live controversy between Mather (in either her individual capacity or as former guardian), on the one hand, and Luna (in any capacity), on the other hand.
If Mather were to prevail in this appeal, she could not recover anything from Luna-the trial court's award of Luna's fees would simply be returned to Robertson's estate. Mather simply lacks a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. We accordingly hold Mather lacks standing to pursue this appeal, and this case is moot for lack of a live controversy. See Tex. Ass'n of Bus, 852 S.W.2d at 444-46; Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 162.
Mather argues she has standing based on a hypothetical controversy that might arise if the trial court were to later determine the payment of Luna's fees was wrongful during the time Mather served as guardian. This hypothetical injury is precisely the type of injury we are prohibited from addressing in an advisory opinion. See Tex. Ass'n of Bus, 852 S.W.2d at 444.
Conclusion
Since Mather lacks standing and because the case is moot, we affirm the trial court's order to the extent it granted Luna's application to pay appointee's fees.
AFFIRMED