When family disputes arise over estate property, attorneys often struggle to determine which court should hear the case. Multiple courts may have authority to resolve property ownership questions that affect ongoing estate administration. However, different types of jurisdiction create different procedural requirements for challenging a court’s authority to hear particular matters.
The distinction between exclusive jurisdiction and dominant jurisdiction determines which procedural tools attorneys must use to contest improper court selection. Many lawyers incorrectly assume that pleas to the jurisdiction can challenge any court’s authority to hear estate-related matters. This misunderstanding can result in failed procedural challenges and unnecessary delays in resolving family property disputes.
In re Puig, 351 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. 2011), clarifies the procedural requirements for challenging courts’ jurisdiction over estate-related property disputes and explains when pleas in abatement rather than pleas to the jurisdiction provide the proper remedy. This case provides an opportunity to examine how different types of jurisdiction affect procedural choices in estate litigation.
Facts & Procedural History
In 1990, Puig Bros. Corporation obtained title to a ranch in Webb County. All corporate shares were owned by Luis Sr. and his six children including Alice and Charles. In 1999, Luis Sr. filed for divorce from the children’s mother, Alicia. During the divorce proceedings, Alicia counterclaimed but did not join Puig Bros. as a party to the litigation.
When the divorce was granted in 2003, the trial court determined that Puig Bros. was operated as Luis Sr.’s alter ego and disregarded it as a corporate entity. Upon division of the community estate, Alicia was awarded a 60% interest in the ranch. Alicia was a resident of Fort Bend County where she passed away shortly after the divorce. She left a will naming her daughter Alice as independent administratrix and sole beneficiary of her estate.
Because Fort Bend County lacks a statutory probate court, Alice filed her mother’s will for probate in a Fort Bend county court at law and was duly issued letters of administration. In her role as administratrix, Alice repeatedly asked her father to execute documents transferring partial ownership of the ranch to Alicia’s estate. Luis Sr. refused to cooperate with the transfer requirements.
The Fort Bend county court held Luis Sr. in contempt and issued an order appointing a master in chancery to act as his attorney-in-fact for executing the required deed. The attorney-in-fact executed a special warranty deed transferring a 60% ownership interest in the ranch to Alicia’s estate. This deed was properly recorded in the Webb County real property records.
After the deed was recorded, several of Luis Sr.’s sons and Puig Bros. itself filed suit against Alice and Charles in a Webb County district court. Based on Alicia’s failure to join Puig Bros. as a party to the divorce proceeding, the declaratory judgment suit sought to void the deed, quiet title, and declare the plaintiffs the rightful owners of title to the ranch.
Following the initiation of the Webb County lawsuit, Luis Sr. passed away. Alice and Charles filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion to transfer venue to the Fort Bend county court where administration of Alicia’s estate was pending. Despite the fact that the Fort Bend county court had already exercised jurisdiction over Alicia’s estate, the Webb County district court denied the plea to the jurisdiction. Alice and Charles then filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to grant their jurisdictional challenge.
What Authority Do County Courts Have Over Estate-Related Property Disputes?
When counties lack a statutory probate court, Section 4 of the former Texas Probate Code provided statutory county courts with the same general jurisdiction as probate courts. This jurisdiction includes the ability to “transact all business appertaining to estates subject to administration” as well as “the power to hear all matters incident to an estate.”
Section 5A(a) of the former Probate Code provided a non-exclusive list of matters qualifying as “appertaining to” and “incident to” an estate administered in a statutory county court. These matters included “all actions for trial of title to land and for the enforcement of liens thereon, all actions for trial of the right of property, and generally all matters relating to the settlement, partition, and distribution of estates of deceased persons.”
When a matter raised in a separate lawsuit is not expressly mentioned in the Probate Code’s definition of matters appertaining and incident to an estate, Texas courts employ the “controlling issue” test to determine whether the matter meets that definition. Under this test, “a suit is appertaining to or incident to an estate when the controlling issue is the settlement, partition, or distribution of an estate.”
In Puig, the controlling issue presented in the Webb County suit undoubtedly involved the settlement, partition, and distribution of Alicia’s estate. The petition sought a declaratory judgment to void the deed transferring ranch ownership to the estate. The plaintiffs also sought to quiet title in the ranch and included a trespass to try title claim requesting judgment for title and possession of the property.
The Supreme Court noted that “[a]t the heart of each of these causes of action lies one common issue: ownership of the ranch.” The outcome of the lawsuit would determine the validity of Alicia’s ownership interest in the ranch and whether that interest could be distributed to the beneficiary of her estate. Because the issues raised in the Webb County suit were appertaining and incident to Alicia’s estate, the Fort Bend county court had power to hear those issues.
How Does Dominant Jurisdiction Differ from Exclusive Jurisdiction?
When the jurisdiction of a county court sitting in probate and a district court are concurrent, the issue is one of dominant jurisdiction rather than exclusive jurisdiction. The court that first exercises jurisdiction over related matters acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of coordinate courts. This principle prevents multiple courts from simultaneously exercising authority over the same legal issues.
Because administration of Alicia’s estate was initiated in Fort Bend county court well before the plaintiffs filed their Webb County lawsuit, the Fort Bend county court clearly attained dominant jurisdiction over Alicia’s estate and all matters appertaining and incident to it. The Supreme Court noted that several courts of appeals had expanded prior holdings to mean that county courts sitting in probate attain exclusive jurisdiction over estate matters once administration opens there.
However, the Supreme Court explicitly declined to reach such a conclusion about exclusive jurisdiction. Instead, the Court stated that “as the law now stands, the only basis for having the [plaintiffs’] lawsuit heard in the Fort Bend county court is that court’s dominant jurisdiction.” This distinction between dominant and exclusive jurisdiction proves significant for determining proper procedural challenges.
The difference reflects practical considerations about how courts should handle concurrent jurisdiction situations. Dominant jurisdiction recognizes that multiple courts may have authority to hear certain matters, but the first court to exercise jurisdiction takes precedence. Exclusive jurisdiction would mean that only one court has authority to hear particular matters regardless of timing considerations.
The issues in Puig were “inherently intertwined because Alicia’s estate will remain open until all claims against it are settled and all assets distributed.” Alicia’s ownership interest in the ranch could not be distributed to her beneficiary until all claims presented in the Webb County lawsuit were adjudicated and the validity of her interest was determined. This interdependence of the legal proceedings supported the dominant jurisdiction analysis.
What Procedural Requirements Apply to Dominant Jurisdiction Challenges?
When two courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine inherently intertwined issues, filing a dilatory plea in abatement is the proper method for drawing a court’s attention to another court’s possible dominant jurisdiction. This procedural requirement differs significantly from the plea to the jurisdiction that Alice and Charles filed in the Webb County case.
Pleas to the jurisdiction are properly used to alert a court to its lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They challenge whether a court has any authority to hear particular types of cases. Pleas in abatement, by contrast, acknowledge that a court has subject matter jurisdiction but argue that another court should exercise that jurisdiction first due to timing or other considerations.
The Supreme Court emphasized that when courts have concurrent jurisdiction over inherently interrelated cases, “filing a dilatory plea in abatement is the proper method for drawing a court’s attention to another court’s possible dominant jurisdiction.” Because Alice and Charles filed a plea to the jurisdiction rather than a plea in abatement, they used the wrong procedural tool to challenge the Webb County court’s authority.
This procedural distinction affects the standard of review and the availability of appellate remedies. The district court’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction did not constitute an abuse of discretion because the court did have subject matter jurisdiction over property disputes. The issue was not whether the court could hear such matters but whether it should defer to another court’s dominant jurisdiction.
The Court noted that “improper denial of a plea in abatement may, on occasion, warrant mandamus relief” but explained that “pleas in abatement are incidental rulings, the denial of which ordinarily does not support mandamus relief.” However, mandamus relief may be appropriate “when a court issues an order which actively interferes with the exercise of jurisdiction by a court possessing dominant jurisdiction.”
The Takeaway
Texas courts distinguish between exclusive jurisdiction and dominant jurisdiction when multiple courts have authority to hear estate-related property disputes, and this distinction determines which procedural tools attorneys must use to challenge improper forum selection. When county courts sitting in probate have concurrent jurisdiction with district courts over property matters incident to estate administration, the proper challenge method is a plea in abatement rather than a plea to the jurisdiction. Pleas to the jurisdiction challenge whether a court has any subject matter jurisdiction over particular types of cases, while pleas in abatement acknowledge concurrent jurisdiction but argue that another court should exercise priority based on timing or dominant jurisdiction principles. Attorneys who file pleas to the jurisdiction in dominant jurisdiction situations use the wrong procedural tool and may fail to obtain the relief they seek, even when the underlying jurisdictional argument has merit. The distinction reflects the reality that estate-related property disputes often involve multiple courts with overlapping authority, requiring procedural mechanisms that can coordinate between courts rather than simply challenging their fundamental power to hear cases.
Do you need help with a probate matter in San Antonio or the surrounding area? We are San Antonio probate attorneys. We help clients navigate the probate process. Call today for a free confidential consultation, (210) 239-8518.
Our San Antonio Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with disputes over financial accounts. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process. We have years of combined experience we can use to support and guide you with probate and estate matters. Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation.
Disclaimer
The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information presented may not apply to your situation and should not be acted upon without consulting a qualified probate attorney. We encourage you to seek the advice of a competent attorney with any legal questions you may have.
