Ruth Woollett and Jane Vorwerk v. Bill Matyastik, Temporary Guardian of the Estate and Person of Rose Matyastik ( 1999 )


Menu:
  • 
    
    
    
    
    
    

    TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN






    NO. 03-99-00353-CV


    Ruth Woollett and Jane Vorwerk, Appellants


    v.



    Bill Matyastik, Temporary Guardian of the Estate and Person

    of Rose Matyastik, Appellee




    FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

    NO. 26,003, HONORABLE CHARLES E. LANCE, JUDGE PRESIDING


    PER CURIAM

    Bill Matyastik was appointed the temporary guardian of the person and estate of his mother, Rose Matyastik. Following a jury trial, the court signed an order appointing Bill the permanent guardian of the person and estate of Ms. Matyastik. Among other matters, the order required Bill to post a $275,204.42 bond. In this appeal, Ruth Woollett and Jane Vorwerk, also children of Ms. Matyastik, challenge the trial court's appointment of Bill as guardian.

    The appointment of a guardian does not take effect until the guardian qualifies as required by law. See Williams v. Foster,

    229 S.W. 896
    , 898 (Tex. Civ. App.--Amarillo 1921,
    no writ).  A guardian is deemed duly qualified if the guardian has taken and filed the oath required
    by Texas Probate Code section 700, made the required bond, filed it with clerk and had the court
    approve the bond.  Tex. Prob. Code Ann. § 699 (West Supp. 1999).  A guardian has twenty days
    from the date of the order granting letters of guardianship to qualify.  Id. § 701.  

    The trial court signed the order appointing Bill permanent guardian on May 20, 1999. On June 8, 1999, Ms. Matyastik died. According to the Milam County district clerk's office, Bill did not file a bond. Therefore, Bill did not qualify as Ms. Matyastik's guardian. Because Ms. Matyastik died before Bill qualified as guardian, an appeal alleging error in his appointment as guardian is moot. See Mason v. Barnard,

    381 S.W.2d 85
    , 86 (Tex. Civ.
    App.--San Antonio 1964,  writ ref'd n.r.e.).  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.  See
    Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).  Appellants' motion to compel the district clerk to file the record and
    return the case to county court is also dismissed as moot. 



    Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

    Dismissed as Moot

    Filed: December 16, 1999

    Do Not Publish











Document Info

Docket Number: 03-99-00353-CV

Filed Date: 12/16/1999

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/5/2015