Goodman v. Summit at West Rim, Ltd.

• Decision Date: 11 September 1997
• Docket Number: 03-96-00307-CV,Nos. 03-96-00306-C,s. 03-96-00306-C
• Citation: 952 S.W.2d 930
• Parties: Jacquelyn GOODMAN, Walter Brown, Gail Gemberling and Scott Roberts, Appellants, v. The SUMMIT AT WEST RIM, LTD.; Weaver Interests, Inc.; and Evans P. Weaver, Individually, Appellees. CITY OF AUSTIN, Texas and Planning Commission of the City of Austin, Texas/The Summit at West Rim, Ltd.; Weaver Interests, Inc.; and Evans P. Weaver, Individually, Appellants, v. The SUMMIT AT WEST RIM, LTD.; Weaver Interests, Inc.; and Evans P. Weaver, Individually/The City of Austin, Texas; The Planning Commission of the City of Austin,Texas; Walter Brown; Gail Gemberling; Scott Roberts; Jacquelyn Goodman; Don Bosse;Bob Cline; Richard Huffman; Brooks Kasson; Darrell W. Pierce; and Cathy Vasquez-Revilla, Appellees.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 930

952 S.W.2d 930

Jacquelyn GOODMAN, Walter Brown, Gail Gemberling and Scott

Roberts, Appellants, v. The SUMMIT AT WEST RIM, LTD.; Weaver Interests, Inc.; and Evans P. Weaver, Individually, Appellees.

CITY OF AUSTIN, Texas and Planning Commission of the City of

Austin, Texas/The Summit at West Rim, Ltd.;

Weaver Interests, Inc.; and Evans P.

Weaver, Individually, Appellants, v. The SUMMIT AT WEST RIM, LTD.; Weaver Interests, Inc.; and Evans P. Weaver, Individually/The City of Austin, Texas;

The Planning Commission of the City of Austin,Texas; Walter

Brown; Gail Gemberling; Scott Roberts; Jacquelyn Goodman;

Don Bosse;Bob Cline; Richard Huffman; Brooks Kasson;

Darrell W. Pierce; and Cathy Vasquez-Revilla, Appellees.

Nos. 03-96-00306-CV, 03-96-00307-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

Austin.

Sept. 11, 1997.

James E. Cousar, Thompson & Knight, P.C., Austin, for Walter Brown.

Jeffrey M. Friedman, Friedman & Weddington, Austin, for Gail Gemberling.

Wayne Gronquist, Austin, for Jacquelyn Goodman.

W. Routt Thornhill, Joseph & Thornhill, P.C., Austin, for Scott Roberts.

Stephen I. Adler, Barron & Adler, L.L.P., Austin, for The Summit at West Rim, Ltd, Weaver Interests, Inc. & Evans P. Weaver, Individually.

Andrew F. Martin, City Atty., Frederick A. Hawkins, Asst. City Atty., Austin, for City of Austin and Planning Commission.

Before CARROLL, C.J., and POWERS and JONES, JJ.

CARROLL, Chief Justice.

These associated appeals arise out of claims filed by The Summit at West Rim, Ltd., Weaver Interests, Inc., and Evans P. Weaver against the City of Austin, the Planning Commission of the City of Austin, and Planning Commission members Walter Brown, Gail Gemberling, Scott Roberts, Jacquelyn Goodman, Don Bosse, Bob Cline, Richard Huffman, Brooks Kasson, Darrell W. Pierce, and Cathy Vasquez-Revilla. On April 1, 1996, the probate court signed an order dismissing the cause for want of subject matter jurisdiction and transferring it to district court. The City of Austin, the Planning Commission of the City of Austin, Walter Brown, Gail Gemberling, Scott Roberts, and Jacquelyn Goodman (collectively "the third-party defendants") and The Summit at

West Rim, Ltd., Weaver Interests, Inc., and Evans P. Weaver (collectively "Weaver") perfected appeals from that order. The third-party defendants challenge the portion of the order transferring the cause to district court. Weaver challenges the portion of the order dismissing the cause for want of subject matter jurisdiction. We will modify the probate court's order and affirm it as modified.

THE CONFLICT

This litigation began as a probate matter in 1992 when the executrix of the estate of Frances Larson Ledbetter sued Weaver to clear title to property it claimed to own. Ownership was disputed because Weaver had entered into a contract to purchase the property from Ledbetter. The purchase was conditioned on Weaver taking certain steps towards developing the property and receiving certain development approvals from the City of Austin. The estate alleged that Weaver had not done so.

Weaver countersued the estate and a co-owner of the property for specific performance because he claimed to have substantially performed under the contract. He also filed a third-party action against the City, claiming that it had hindered him from obtaining necessary development approvals. Weaver prayed for a mandamus directing the City to approve the revised preliminary plan, and, since he had performed under the contract, he prayed that the court require the sellers to convey the property to him in accordance with their contract. He also sued the third-party defendants for money damages, alleging that they were liable to him for wrongfully hindering issuance of the permits.

The probate court chose to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the third-party claims, pursuant to Texas Probate Code section 5A(d). ¹ Tex. Prob.Code Ann. § 5A(d) (West Supp.1997). By December 21, 1995, the probate court had dismissed all claims by and against the estate. At that point, the only unresolved claims in the probate court were Weaver's third-party claims against the City, the Planning Commission, and the individual commission members.

The third-party defendants then moved to dismiss the claims without prejudice on the ground that the probate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider an ancillary claim after the underlying claim involving the estate had been settled. The probate court, agreeing, dismissed the claims but ordered them transferred to the district court.

ANALYSIS

I. Loss of Jurisdiction

The third-party defendants argue that regardless whether the probate court properly A court may exercise only the jurisdiction accorded it by the constitution or by statute. City of Beaumont v. West, 484 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Subject matter jurisdiction may not be enlarged by an agreement between the parties or by a request that the court exceed its powers. Texas Ass'n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex.1993); Burke v. Satterfield, 525 S.W.2d 950, 953 (Tex.1975). A probate court is a specialized court that exists primarily for the limited purpose of administering decedents' estates. See generally Tex. Prob.Code §§ 5, 5A (West Supp.1997).

exercised jurisdiction over Weaver's third-party actions, the probate court lost whatever jurisdiction it may have had when the estate settled. We agree. And, because we determine that the probate court lost jurisdiction over the ancillary causes when the estate settled, we need not determine whether the probate court properly exercised ancillary or pendent jurisdiction over the third-party defendants.

Weaver cites a line of cases for the proposition that a court does not lose subject matter jurisdiction once it attaches. Although that may be generally true, we believe the general rule does not apply in this situation. Loss of jurisdiction is characteristic of specialized courts. See In re Estate of Hanau, 806 S.W.2d 900, 904 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied) (court lost jurisdiction to remove independent executrix after estate was closed). Likewise, federal district courts routinely lose jurisdiction over ancillary state claims if the federal claim conferring jurisdiction is dismissed before trial. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966).

In Texas, the pendency of a probate proceeding is a requisite for a court's exercise of jurisdiction over matters related to it. In Bailey v. Cherokee County Appraisal District, 862 S.W.2d 581 (Tex.1993), the Texas Supreme Court stated that a trial court must have a probate case pending to exercise its jurisdiction over matters "incident to an estate." See also In re Estate of Hanau, 806 S.W.2d at 904 (court lost jurisdiction to remove independent executrix after estate was closed). We hold that the probate court may only exercise "ancillary" or "pendent" jurisdiction over a claim that bears some relationship to the estate. Once the estate settles, the claim is "ancillary" or "pendent" to nothing, and the court is without jurisdiction.

An analogous situation occurs in cases in which a court loses jurisdiction over an indispensable party. The court in which the proceeding was pending loses subject matter jurisdiction over the cause when an indispensable party is nonsuited. Travis Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Small, 662 S.W.2d 406, 413 (Tex.App.--Austin 1983, no writ); see also Royal Petroleum Corp. v. McCallum, 134 Tex. 543, 135 S.W.2d 958 (1940). Similarly, we hold that the estate is an "indispensable party" to any proceeding in the probate court. The estate's presence is required for the determination of any proceeding that is ancillary or pendent to an estate.

Most of the cases Weaver cites for the proposition that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be lost involve amount-in-controversy requirements. See, e.g., Mr. W. Fireworks, Inc. v. Mitchell, 622 S.W.2d 576, 577 (Tex.1981) (trial court had jurisdiction to render judgment greater than jurisdictional limits since attorney's fees increased during trial of case); Flynt v. Garcia, 587 S.W.2d 109, 109-110 (Tex.1979) (trial court did not lose jurisdiction over case despite fact that amount in controversy grew beyond the court's jurisdictional limits). We distinguish these cases on the basis that they involved original, rather than ancillary, jurisdiction. The courts in question undoubtedly had jurisdiction over the type of proceeding involved; the fact that the amount in controversy increased over time would not complicate or extend the proceeding. Conversely, the probate court's consideration of tort and civil rights actions would complicate the probate proceeding and could interfere with the probate court's primary responsibility to administer estates.

The probate court had discretion to resolve ancillary claims against third parties only to the extent that such claims were necessary to resolve claims within its original jurisdiction. Any such discretion arguably vanished with the settlement and dismissal of the claim conferring original jurisdiction, which was the estate's original claim against Weaver. The court's discretion undoubtedly vanished with the dismissal of the estate from the probate court proceeding.

We conclude that the probate court had no discretion to continue to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the third-party defendants after it dismissed the estate from the proceeding. We overrule Weaver's single point of error in cause number 03-96-00307-CV and two cross-points of error in cause number 03-96-00306-CV.

II. Transfer to District Court

We next decide whether the probate court may transfer a cause that it has dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction to a district court. We hold that the portion of the order purporting to transfer...