English v. Cobb, B-8380

• Decision Date: 12 December 1979
• Docket Number: No. B-8380,B-8380
• Parties: Charles Reed ENGLISH, Independent Executor of the Estate of Mae Cobb English, Deceased, Petitioner, v. Nan L. COBB, Respondent.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 674

593 S.W.2d 674

Charles Reed ENGLISH, Independent Executor of the Estate of Mae Cobb English, Deceased, Petitioner, v. Nan L. COBB, Respondent.

No. B-8380.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 12, 1979.

Carter, Gordon & Von Doenhoff, Charles L. Carter, Jr., Crockett, for petitioner.

Clark Anderson, Lufkin, for respondent.

GREENHILL, Chief Justice.

This case involves the jurisdiction of the Angelina County Court at Law to determine an estate's rights in a $15,900.44 savings account held in the names of the deceased and her sister. The court of civil appeals determined that the county court at law had no jurisdiction to hear the case since the amount in controversy exceeded the county court's jurisdictional amount as prescribed in Article 1970-355. ¹ Consequently, the court of civil appeals reversed the judgment of the county court, and dismissed the case without considering the merits of the appeal. 579 S.W.2d 22. We are of the opinion that the court of civil appeals erred in its interpretation of the statutes defining the jurisdiction of the county court at law in probate matters. Accordingly, we reverse its judgment, and remand the cause to that court for its determination of the merits.

Charles Reed English, independent executor of the estate of Mae Cobb English, filed suit in the Angelina County Court at Law against Ms. Nan L. Cobb, sister of the deceased. ² The suit alleged that Ms. Cobb had wrongfully withdrawn $15,900.44 of Mrs. English's money from a savings account after Mrs. English's death. The executor, English, on behalf of the estate, sought recovery of that amount.

At trial, it was established that both Mrs. English and Ms. Cobb had been signatories on a savings account originally opened by Mrs. English. After Mrs. English's death, Ms. Cobb transferred the balance of that account to her bank in Galveston, contending that she had a legal right to withdraw that money since hers was one of the signatures on the savings account. The ultimate question for the trial court's determination was whether the circumstances surrounding the addition of Ms. Cobb's name to the signature card created a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship in the savings account. Upon conclusion of the trial, the county court at law found that no joint tenancy with right of survivorship had been created and that Ms. Cobb had wrongfully withdrawn the money from the savings account. The county court entered judgment for Executor English in the amount of $15,900.44.

Since the court of civil appeals dismissed the appeal of this case on jurisdictional grounds, the sole issue presented to this Court is whether the Angelina County Court at Law had jurisdiction to adjudicate the estate's rights to the money in the savings account.

Article 1970-355, § 1(b), as amended in 1977, defines the jurisdiction for the County Court at Law for Angelina County. It provides:

The county court at law has the same Jurisdiction over all causes and proceedings, civil, criminal, and Probate, original and appellate, Prescribed by law for county courts, and its jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the County Court at Angelina County. The county court at law also has jurisdiction concurrent with the district court . . . In civil cases when the matter in controversy exceeds $500 and Does not exceed $10,000, exclusive of interest. (Emphasis added).

A close reading of the statute reveals that the Angelina County Court at Law is not subjected to a jurisdictional limit, either minimum or maximum, When the court sits in probate. Rather, the $10,000.00 jurisdictional limit on the amount in controversy applies only to those Civil cases where the county court Exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the district court. The limitation does not apply to those cases being tried in the county court under its probate jurisdiction.

Ms. Cobb contends that the instant suit is not one that falls within the county court's probate jurisdiction. Instead, she argues that this suit is actually an ordinary suit for conversion, a Civil action arising out of an allegedly wrongful retention of money. Thus, she contends that Executor English's suit was properly dismissed by the court of civil appeals, since the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.00. Accordingly, she argues that this suit should have been brought in district court.

In the course of examining this contention, it is necessary to address the recent changes in the constitutional and statutory provisions prescribing the jurisdictional powers of the county courts at law when sitting in probate.

Prior to 1973, the pertinent statutory and constitutional provisions were interpreted to define strictly the jurisdiction of county and district courts over matters brought with respect to the property involved in an estate. It was established that the county courts, while having general probate jurisdiction, did not have the power to determine the ownership of property, real or personal, for the purpose of determining what property was properly includable in the estate. See, e. g., Johnston v. Stephens, 121 Tex. 374, 49 S.W.2d 431 (1932); H. D. Lee Mercantile Co. v. Thompson, 161 S.W.2d 581 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1942, no writ). Nor did the county court have the power to construe the provisions of a will, where title...