You might think that receiving an ineritance is easy. How could that be complicated? The maxum that nothing is easy is fitting.
When a family member inherits property, they may be inheriting a build-in legal problem. This often happens when property is left to more than one person and one person wants to keep the property but the other wants to sell it.
These disputes become particularly complex when the inherited property cannot be easily divided and qualifies as “heirs’ property” under newer protective statutes designed to prevent forced sales. The intersection of traditional estate administration powers and modern partition protections has created some confusion as to how the rules are to be applied.
The Estate of Billy Wayne Phillips, 2025 WL 1006386 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2025) case is one of the first to address the new heirship property rules and how they interact with the existing estate administration rules. The case involves real estate that was inherted by two sisters, one of whom wanted to partition and keep the property and one wanted to sell the property.
Facts & Procedural History
Billy died in 2019. He left behind a will that devised all of his estate to his two daughters, Sheila and Billie.
The estate included approximately fourteen acres of land in Hunt County. The will appointed Sheila as the independent executrix. It granted her expansive powers, including “full power and authority over any and all of Phillips’ estate.” The will also authorized Sheila “to sell, manage, and dispose of the same or any part thereof.”
Billie had been living on the Hunt County property with her father’s permission before his death. She continued to do so after his death.
The will was admitted to probate. The probate court appointed Sheila as independent executrix. As the sole executrix, Sheila possessed the broad powers granted by the will to administer the estate.
In February 2022, Billie filed a petition seeking partition of the property under Chapter 23A of the Texas Property Code. This chapter is known as the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act. Billie wanted the court to divide the property so she could retain the portion where she had been living.
Sheila responded by moving to dismiss Billie’s petition under Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Sheila argued that the partition claim had no legal basis. The will gave Sheila the power of sale. The will did not make a specific devise of the property to Billie.
The probate court granted Sheila’s motion. The probate court dismissed Billie’s partition claims in April 2022. Billie filed an amended petition in September 2022. She again raised partition claims under both Chapter 23 and Chapter 23A of the Texas Property Code. In February 2023, the trial court entered an order finding that Sheila had the power to sell the property without further court order. This decision led to the court opinion that is the result of this probate litigation by the appellate court.
This sets up the question, who has the right to decide how to partition and sell the property? Is it the joint owner who lives in the property or is it the executor under the will?
The Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act
The answer is found in the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act. This Act represents a significant shift in how Texas approaches partition of family-owned property. The law is intended to address the unique challenges facing families who own property as tenants in common, as in this case. So it is intended for family members who want to retain the property while others prefer to sell.
Traditional partition law often forced the sale of family property when co-owners disagreed about its future. This created particular hardships for families whose property had been passed down through generations. The result was sometimes the loss of family land to outside buyers who could exploit family disagreements. The Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act sought to “improve the law of partition with respect to cases involving family-owned tenancy-in-common property by ensuring that each cotenant in a partition action is treated in a fair and equitable manner.”
Texas adopted the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act in 2017. The legislature added Chapter 23A to the Texas Property Code. The statute became effective on September 1, 2017. It supplements the general partition provisions found in Chapter 23 of the Texas Property Code.
How Does Property Qualify as “Heirs’ Property”?
Chapter 23A only applies to property that meets the statutory definition of “heirs’ property.” Under Section 23A.002(5) of the Texas Property Code, heirs’ property must be “real property held in tenancy in common.” The property must satisfy three specific requirements as of the filing of a partition action.
First, there must be no agreement binding all co-owners that governs partition of the property. This prevents parties from circumventing the Act’s protections through private agreements that might disadvantage some family members.
Second, one or more of the co-owners must have acquired title from a relative. The relative may be living or deceased. This requirement ensures the Act applies to property with family connections rather than purely commercial arrangements between unrelated parties.
Third, the property must meet one of three additional conditions. Twenty percent or more of the interests must be held by co-owners who are relatives. Twenty percent or more of the interests must be held by someone who acquired title from a relative. Twenty percent or more of the co-owners must be relatives.
The court found that the Hunt County property clearly met this definition. Both daughters received their interests through their father’s will. This made them co-owners who acquired title from a relative. As the only two co-owners, one hundred percent of the interests were held by relatives who acquired title from their father.
What Powers Does an Independent Executor Possess?
Independent executors in Texas hold significant authority to administer estates without ongoing court supervision. The Texas Estates Code grants these fiduciaries broad powers to collect estate assets, pay debts, and distribute property to beneficiaries. When a will specifically grants additional powers, the executor’s authority becomes even more expansive. Phillips’ will did exactly that.
Phillips’ will gave Sheila “full power and authority over any and all of his estate.” The will authorized her “to sell, manage, and dispose of the same or any part thereof.” This language provided clear authorization for Sheila to sell estate property, including the Hunt County tract, as part of her duties in administering the estate.
The court emphasized that Sheila held legal title to the property as executor. Billie held only an equitable interest subject to estate administration. This distinction is important to the holding of the case. It meant the property remained under the executor’s control during the administration process. Billie had a vested interest in ultimately receiving her share, but that interest was subject to administration by Sheila.
Can Chapter 23A Override Estate Administration Authority?
So back to the question posed by this case. Can Chapter 23A override estate administration authority?
The answer depends on which legal framework takes precedence. Estate administration powers can conflict with partition rights under the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, as in this case. Given the facts in this case, the court concluded that estate administration law controls during the pendency of estate proceedings.
The court relied heavily on Section 405.0015 of the Texas Estates Code. This provision was enacted during the same legislative session as Chapter 23A. The provision grants independent executors specific authority to distribute property that is not specifically devised. The executor must be authorized to sell the property. The statute allows executors to “make distributions in divided or undivided interests.” Executors may also “allocate particular assets in proportionate or disproportionate shares.”
Section 405.0015 begins with the phrase “Unless the will, if any, or a court order provides otherwise.” This indicates that these powers are subject to limitations. However, Phillips’ will explicitly granted Sheila the power of sale rather than restricting it. The court found this statutory framework provided independent executors with the tools necessary to avoid partition litigation during estate administration.
The timing of these statutory enactments proved significant to the court’s analysis. Both Chapter 23A and Section 405.0015 became effective on the same date. This suggests the legislature intended them to work together rather than create conflicting requirements. The court noted that Section 405.0015 “provides an independent executor with the tools necessary to make non-pro-rata distributions and avoid the common partition litigation among heirs anticipated and addressed by the Heirs Partition Act.”
What About Competing Interpretations of Section 405.0015?
The court’s interpretation of Section 405.0015 generated controversy among the judges hearing the case. The majority read the statute as confirming an independent executor’s power of sale over property not specifically devised. Justice Rambin’s dissenting opinion offered a different interpretation. His view focused on the statute’s grant of distribution powers rather than sale authority.
Justice Rambin argued that Section 405.0015 should be read differently. The statute grants independent executors the power to “make distributions in divided or undivided interests” when distributing property they are authorized to sell. Under his interpretation, the statute provides a tool for partition rather than a barrier to it. He contended that executors could use these powers to avoid partition litigation by making appropriate distributions that satisfy family members’ preferences.
This interpretive difference highlights the complexity of coordinating multiple statutory schemes that address overlapping concerns. The majority’s interpretation prioritizes the orderly administration of estates and the authority of independent executors. The dissenting view emphasizes the protective purposes of the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act.
The dissent also raised concerns about the practical consequences of the majority’s approach. Justice Rambin noted that attorney fees incurred in the litigation were being used as estate debts to justify selling the property. This created a situation where the costs of fighting over partition could ultimately require the very sale that one party sought to avoid. This concern touches on issues that often arise in estate planning when families fail to anticipate potential conflicts over property disposition.
Does This Create Unfair Results for Beneficiaries?
The practical impact of the Phillips decision raises questions about fairness to beneficiaries who want to retain family property. Consider a situation where multiple siblings inherit the family homestead. Only one has been living there and maintaining it for years. Under the court’s ruling, the executor may have power of sale under the will. That sibling may have no recourse to prevent a forced sale during estate administration. This remains true even if the property clearly qualifies as “heirs’ property” under Chapter 23A.
Justice Rambin’s dissent highlighted this concern. Billie had been living on the property with her father’s blessing. She wanted to retain the portion she occupied. The ruling effectively meant that her equitable interest in the property could be converted to cash through a forced sale. This occurred despite the legislature’s intent to protect family property through the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act.
The decision also creates an interesting dynamic where the timing of property distribution becomes determinative. If an executor distributes property to beneficiaries as tenants in common, Chapter 23A would then apply to any subsequent partition disputes. However, if the executor chooses to sell the property during administration, beneficiaries have no recourse under the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act.
The Takeaway
This case establishes that estate administration law takes precedence over partition rights during estate proceedings in Texas. When an independent executor holds the power of sale under a will, beneficiaries cannot invoke Chapter 23A of the Texas Property Code to compel partition of estate property. This remains true even when that property clearly qualifies as “heirs’ property” under the statute. The decision also shows how statutory reforms intended to protect family property can be limited by the continuing authority of traditional estate administration procedures.
Our Dallas Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with probate litigation. Probate is what we do. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process.We have years of combined experience we can use to support and guide you with probate and estate matters. Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation.
Disclaimer: The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information presented may not apply to your situation and should not be acted upon without consulting a qualified probate attorney. We encourage you to seek the advice of a competent attorney with any legal questions you may have.
Don't miss out, get a copy today!
