When family members disagree about which county should handle probate proceedings, the winner often isn’t the one with the best legal arguments. Instead, Texas law provides the advantage for whoever files first. This can be true even when the initial application has serious flaws or when the applicant fails to follow through on court requirements.
This “first to file” rule can determine whether probate happens in a convenient local courthouse or requires travel to a distant county where the family has no connections. It can affect which judge hears the case, which probate attorneys the parties can easily retain, and how much the proceedings will cost.
The question becomes: how much of a head start does filing first actually provide? Fernandez v. Bustamante, 305 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010), explains this advantage even when the first filer fails to complete basic requirements.
Facts & Procedural History
Jose died in May 2007. His mother Rosa and his former wife Ana were the parties to the probate dispute. Both had potential claims to serve as administrator, and both preferred different counties for the probate proceedings.
The decedent’s mother moved first. She filed an application for temporary administration in Bexar County in September 2007. The court granted her appointment that same day, but she never posted the required bond. Two months later, she filed a second application in Bexar County seeking appointment as co-temporary administrator with her attorney. Again the court granted the appointment, and again no bond was posted.
Five months later in February 2008, the former wife filed her own application in Harris County. She claimed she was unaware of the Bexar County proceedings. Her application sought appointment as permanent administrator on behalf of the decedent’s ten-year-old son. The Harris County court appointed her and she qualified by posting bond in March 2008.
When the decedent’s former wife discovered the earlier Bexar County filings, she filed a motion to terminate the temporary administration and transfer venue to Harris County. She argued that venue was mandatory in Harris County based on where the decedent was domiciled. After hearings on the domicile question, the Bexar County court found that venue was proper in Bexar County but transferred the case to Harris County “for the convenience of the estate” because much of the decedent’s property was located there.
How Texas Venue Rules Create “First to File” Priority
Texas Estates Code Section 33.052 sets out the fundamental rule that creates first-filer advantage in probate proceedings. The statute provides that when “applications for probate proceedings involving the same estate are filed in two or more courts having concurrent venue, the court in which a proceeding involving the estate was first commenced has and retains jurisdiction of the proceeding to the exclusion of the other court or courts.”
This rule serves several practical purposes in administering probate estates. It prevents multiple courts from issuing conflicting orders about the same estate. It avoids the waste of judicial resources that would occur if several counties conducted parallel proceedings. Most importantly for probate attorneys, it provides certainty about which court will handle the case.
The statute makes clear that the first-filed case “extends to all of the decedent’s property, including the decedent’s estate property.” This means the first court gets jurisdiction over the entire estate, not just assets located within that county. Section 33.053 reinforces this by requiring that proceedings in other counties be stayed “until the court in which the proceeding was first commenced makes a final determination of venue.”
The timing element is decisive under Section 33.051. This defines when a “probate proceeding is considered commenced” as “the filing of an application for the proceeding that avers facts sufficient to confer venue on the court in which the application is filed.” Notice that the rule depends on filing the application, not on the court granting relief or the applicant qualifying to serve.
When Does a Failed Bond Payment End the First-Filer Advantage?
The former spouse’s main argument centered on whether the mother’s failure to post bond terminated the Bexar County proceedings, thereby eliminating any first-filer priority. If the Bexar County case had ended before the former spouse filed in Harris County, then her Harris County filing would become the first valid proceeding.
The court rejected this argument by applying the established principle that probate jurisdiction continues until the administration is formally closed. The court cited Balfour v. Collins, where the Texas Supreme Court held that “the administration of an estate… from the filing of the application for probate and administration… until the decree of final distribution and the discharge of the last personal representative, shall be considered as one proceeding for purposes of jurisdiction.”
This rule means that administrative gaps don’t reset the venue timeline. In Wallace v. Dubose, a county court began probating a will but the named executrix failed to qualify. More than a year passed, but the court held that “the refusal or failure of the executrix to qualify under the will did not defeat jurisdiction, but the estate was still being administered in the county court… and the lapse of time did not deprive the county court of jurisdiction, because the administration has not been closed.”
The Fernandez court applied this same reasoning to conclude that the mother’s failure to post bond created an administrative problem but didn’t terminate the proceeding. The Bexar County court never entered an order closing the administration or dismissing the case. The appointments remained technically in effect even though they couldn’t function without posted bonds.
The Court’s Transfer Decision and Discretionary Venue
Having established that Bexar County retained jurisdiction through the first-filing rule, the court still had to address the former spouse’s argument that venue was mandatory in Harris County based on the decedent’s domicile. This created a tension between the first-filing priority and the substantive venue requirements.
The court resolved this by finding that the decedent was not domiciled in Texas at all, making Harris County venue permissive rather than mandatory. Since the decedent died in Bexar County, venue was proper there under the rule allowing probate in the county where the decedent died when he had no domicile in Texas.
However, the court exercised its discretion to transfer the case to Harris County under Texas Estates Code Section 33.103, which allows transfer “for the convenience of the estate” when “it would be in the best interest of the estate.” The court based this decision on the fact that much of the decedent’s property was located in Harris County.
This outcome shows how the first-filing rule operates in practice. Even when the first filer fails to complete basic requirements, they retain enough control to influence where the case ultimately gets heard. The mother’s early Bexar County filing prevented Harris County from claiming mandatory venue, but it also positioned her to negotiate or influence the transfer decision.
The Takeaway
This case explains the strategic advantage to filing first. Filing first provides substantial protection even when the initial application has problems. This can include never posting bond and never serving as administrator. The decision also shows that challenging first-filer priority requires proving that the initial proceeding was completely invalid or formally terminated. Simply showing that the first applicant failed to qualify or perform their duties may not be sufficient. The challenging party must demonstrate that the court formally closed or dismissed the original proceeding. For families dealing with potential probate disputes, this decision reinforces the importance of moving quickly to secure favorable venue before competing parties can establish priority in less convenient forums.
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 jurisdiction. 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.
