In Re Robert H. Crane v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-23-00125-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE ROBERT H. CRANE
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1
By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Robert H. Crane contends that the Hidalgo
County Probate Court erred by denying his plea to the jurisdiction. According to relator,
the Hidalgo County Probate Court lacks jurisdiction to allow real party in interest Sasha
S. Crane, the independent administrator of the estate of Scott Clement Crane, deceased,
to serve subpoenas on relator.
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.
Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,
840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148
S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial
court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re
USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,
839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two
requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. However, “[a] trial court abuses its
discretion if it enters a void order, and mandamus will issue to remedy the void order
regardless of whether the relator has an adequate remedy by appeal.” In re J.R., 622
S.W.3d 602, 604 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2021, orig. proceeding [mand. dism’d]).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the record, the response filed by the real party in interest, the reply, and the applicable
law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden of proof to obtain mandamus
relief. Relator contends that: (1) the estates code prohibits an order allowing discovery in
the probate proceeding because the decedent’s estate was handled through an
independent administration; (2) the decedent’s estate was closed as a matter of law; and
(3) the probate court lacks plenary jurisdiction. However, although § 402.001 of the
estates code limits the probate court’s supervision over an independent administration, it
does not deprive the probate court of jurisdiction over matters relating to the estate. See
2
Estate of Savana, 529 S.W.3d 587, 593 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.)
(discussing TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 402.001); see also In re Estate of Wetzel, No. 05-20-
01104-CV, 2022 WL 1183294, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 21, 2022, no pet.) (mem.
op.). Moreover, the record does not clearly indicate that the probate estate was fully
disposed given that there are pending claims against the estate or debts alleged against
the estate. See In re John G. Kenedy Mem’l Found., 159 S.W.3d 133, 144 (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2004, orig. proceeding). In this regard, a matter related to a
probate proceeding includes “a claim for money owed by the decedent,” and relator
contends that he “is insisting that he receive equal dividends in the distribution of
proceeds from the sale of assets of businesses that he has owned equally with [the
decedent].” See TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 31.001(4); see also id. § 31.002(c) (defining
matters related to probate proceedings). Further, the record does not indicate that any
party is assailing an order or judgment for which plenary power has expired. See In re
Jacky, 506 S.W.3d 550, 555 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding).
Finally, although relator asserts that there are two other different cases pending in which
the subject discovery could be sought, the matters as presented here do not invoke issues
pertaining to dominant jurisdiction.
In sum, on this record and at this time, relator has not met his burden to obtain
relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay that we previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.10 (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective
3
until the case is finally decided.”). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus without
prejudice.
DORI CONTRERAS
Chief Justice
Delivered and filed on the
17th day of May, 2023.
4