Bunting v. Pearson
Decision Date | 10 July 1968 |
Docket Number | No. B--671,B--671 |
Citation | 430 S.W.2d 470 |
Parties | Grace BUNTING, Petitioner, v. Anita Martice King PEARSON, Respondent. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Lemon, Close & Atkinson, Robert D. Lemon, Perryton, for petitioner.
Gene E. Steed, Perryton, for respondent.
Prior to the adoption of the Texas Probate Code, V.A.T.S. 1 in 1955, this Court had repeatedly held that the general provisions of the Revised Statutes regulating the procedures for establishing claims against an estate were not applicable to claims against an estate administered by an independent executor. Smyth v. Caswell, 65 Tex. 379 (1886); Roy v. Whitaker, 92 Tex. 346, 48 S.W. 892, 49 S.W. 367 (1898); Fischer v. Britton, 125 Tex. 505, 83 S.W.2d 305 (1935). The court of civil appeals, in reversing a trial court judgment, has held that this rule was radically changed by the provisions of the Probate Code as amended and that a claim presented to an independent executor and not acted upon within thirty days must be considered as rejected and that as suit was not filed thereon within ninety days thereafter, a recovery on the claim was barred. 423 S.W.2d 177.
The petitioner-plaintiff, Grace Bunting, brought this action to recover the reasonable value of services rendered by her for Bertha Helen King, now deceased. In her will, which was duly probated, Mrs. King appointed her daughter, Anita Martice King Pearson, independent executrix of her estate. On July 28, 1964 and on January 13, 1965, the plaintiff presented claims to the executrix who took no action with reference thereto. On July 19, 1965, the plaintiff brought suit against the executrix for services rendered the testatrix between April 1963 and April 1964. These alleged services were the basis of the claims theretofore presented to the executrix. The July 1964 claim was simply a money claim for $1,200.00. The January 1965 claim sets out the services rendered. A motion for summary judgment filed by the executrix was overruled, and after a jury trial judgment for $1,200.00 was rendered for the plaintiff. For the reasons heretofore stated, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed. We disagree.
A somewhat detailed examination of certain provisions of the Probate Code as originally enacted in 1955 and as amended in 1957 is necessary. We set out these provisions and italicize the portions thereof which are deemed particularly pertinent here:
'When used in this Code, Unless otherwise apparent from the context: * * *
The Court of Civil Appeals in reaching the conclusion that sections 309, 310 and 313 of the Probate Code apply to 'independent executors', held that the term 'representative' as used in those provisions included 'independent executor'. We do not agree with this conclusion. Section three of the Code provides that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alice Nat. Bank v. Corpus Christi Bank & Trust
...also 37 Tex.Law Review 828, 45 Tex.Law Review 352. The Supreme Court of Texas has just handed down its decision in the case of Bunting v. Pearson, 430 S.W.2d 470. That case involved the nature of independent administration in Texas and the Supreme Court's position relating thereto. Grace Bu......
-
Montague v. Brassell
...to the independent executor. Fischer v. Britton, 125 Tex. 505, 83 S.W.2d 305, 306 (1935) (under the prior statute) and Bunting v. Pearson, 430 S.W.2d 470 (Tex.Sup., 1968) (under the Probate Code) Had plaintiff elected so to do under the trust powers contained in the deed of trust, the forec......
-
Wood v. Paulus, 878
...executor from the control of the court, except where the Code specifically and explicitly provides otherwise. Bunting v. Pearson,430 S.W.2d 470 (Tex.Sup.1968). Appellants have shown no statutory authority of the Lavaca County Court to issue the order exemplified by their exhibit Appellant's......
-
Texas Commerce Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Geary
...administrations. Fischer v. Britton, 125 Tex. 505, 508-09, 83 S.W.2d 305, 306-07 (1935). The dissent relies on Bunting v. Pearson, 430 S.W.2d 470 (Tex.1968), in concluding that section 146 of the probate code did not overrule Fischer's holding. We disagree. In its Bunting decision, the supr......
-
Table of cases
...S.W.2d 249 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1981, no writ), §7:92 Broders v. Heise, 924 S.W.2d 148 (Tex. 1996), Form 15-9 Bunting v. Pearson , 430 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. 1968), §12:01 Burdick v. York Oil Co., 364 S.W.2d 766, 769-770 (Tex. Civ. App. — San Antonio, 1963, writ ref’d n.r.e.), Form 15-9 C C......
-
Creditors
...applicable to independent administrations, making clear that they definitely apply to dependent administrations. [ Bunting v. Pearson , 430 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. 1968).] The 2011 Legislature tried to clear up some of the confusion by stating definitively that Code §§355.064, 355.066,and 355.156-......