Family disputes during probate administration often escalate when siblings disagree about what should happen to the family property. One child may want to keep the homestead in the family, while another sees it as an unproductive burden that should be sold. These conflicts become even more complex when a court has already removed the family members as executors and appointed an independent receiver to manage the estate.
The question becomes whether a beneficiary can force the court to partition estate property when that same court has already authorized its sale through a receiver. Can family members invoke their rights under Chapter 360 of the Texas Estates Code to compel a different outcome, or does the receiver’s authority take precedence?
In re Estate of Tot S. Richards, 703 S.W.3d 920 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2024, no pet.), provides an opportunity to consider these competing interests and understand how Texas courts balance statutory partition rights against the practical realities of estate administration under court supervision.
Facts & Procedural History
Tot died testate in 2018. He was survived by three daughters: Debbie, Donna, and Darla. His will named all three daughters as independent co-executors of his estate. The probate court issued letters testamentary to the three sisters in 2018, but their ability to work together quickly deteriorated.
Before their removal as executors, Debbie filed suit against the executors alleging that Donna and Darla had controlled the estate’s actions by acting together as a majority of the co-executors. Her pleading included claims for breach of fiduciary duties, constructive fraud, conspiracy, and importantly, a request for partition and distribution of the estate under Chapter 360 of the Texas Estates Code. The sisters’ conflicts eventually became so severe that the court removed all three as independent co-executors.
In April 2022, the trial court appointed Karen Gordon as receiver of the estate. Gordon was granted broad authority to take possession of all estate assets, manage the estate’s business interests, and sell any unused property. The receiver’s appointment order was not challenged in the subsequent appeal.
The dispute that led to this court case began when Gordon announced her intention to sell a 299-acre tract known as the “Bird” or “Homeplace.” On October 3, 2022, Gordon emailed the attorneys representing the three daughters, informing them of her plan to sell the property based on a broker’s valuation and comparable sales. She gave them until 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 6, to voice any concerns.
Debbie’s attorney responded just before the deadline to oppose the sale. He argued that “the sale of family land should be the sole discretion of the family.” Gordon replied that the court had ordered her to sell all unproductive property and that if Debbie was interested, she could make an offer. Donna made a full-price offer, which Gordon accepted as the only offer received.
On October 20, Debbie filed a supplemental application for declaratory judgment to challenge Gordon’s authority to sell the Homeplace. She argued that Gordon had no authority to “partition” the property under Chapter 360 of the Texas Estates Code or under the receiver appointment order. Debbie sought a declaration that all estate property remained subject to her earlier request for partition and distribution.
The trial court conducted a hearing on October 28. Gordon presented testimony from a real estate broker who valued the property at $2,400 per acre. Gordon testified that the property was unused, not income-producing, and expensive to maintain. She specifically stated that “you cannot partition a residential property” and that the best value would come from selling it as a whole rather than dividing it.
On October 31, the trial court entered an order approving the sale to Donna. On November 17, it denied Debbie’s supplemental application for declaratory judgment. The court’s findings of fact stated that the property was a burden on the estate, that the sale was in the estate’s best interest, that the price was fair, and that the property was not capable of being partitioned in kind.
What Does Chapter 360 Actually Grant to Beneficiaries?
Chapter 360 of the Texas Estates Code establishes the framework for partition and distribution of estate property in Texas. This chapter represents a significant right for estate beneficiaries. It allows them to request the division of estate assets rather than being forced to accept whatever distribution method the executor or administrator chooses.
Section 360.001 provides the basic right: “At any time after the first anniversary of the date original letters testamentary or of administration are granted, an executor, administrator, heir, or devisee of a decedent’s estate, by written application filed in the court in which the estate is pending, may request the partition and distribution of the estate.” This language grants a broad right to any interested party to initiate partition proceedings.
For partial distributions, Section 360.002 allows similar requests “at any time after original letters testamentary or of administration are granted and the inventory, appraisement, and list of claims are filed and approved.” This provision enables beneficiaries to seek distribution of specific portions of the estate without waiting for complete administration.
However, the broad language of these sections can be misleading. While beneficiaries have the right to request partition, the question becomes whether courts must grant such requests or retain discretion to deny them based on circumstances.
Does “May Distribute” Create Discretion or Mandate Action?
The heart of the Richards decision lies in the court’s interpretation of seemingly discretionary language within Chapter 360. While Section 360.001 grants beneficiaries the right to request partition, Section 360.002(c) provides that “the court may distribute any portion of the estate the court considers advisable.”
The court emphasized that the word “may” indicates discretion rather than a mandatory duty. The court stated that “the probate court has a measure of discretion to determine whether to order the partition in kind of an item of estate property.”
Similarly, Section 360.102 begins with the conditional phrase: “If the court determines that the estate should be partitioned and distributed.” This language reinforces that the court must make an initial determination about whether partition is appropriate before proceeding with the detailed requirements of Chapter 360.
Given this language, the Richards court found that subsequent sections within Chapter 360 demonstrate that the legislature intended to grant courts discretion rather than create absolute beneficiary rights.
The court’s reasoning suggests that Chapter 360 creates a process for requesting partition rather than an entitlement to receive it. Beneficiaries can invoke the statutory procedures, but courts retain ultimate authority to determine whether partition serves the estate’s interests.
But Do Independent Administrations Follow Different Rules?
A threshold question in the Richards case was whether Chapter 360 applies to independent administrations at all. This is one that estate planning attorneys may be particularly interested in. The estate originally proceeded as an independent administration before the sisters were removed and a receiver appointed. This distinction matters because independent administrations operate under different rules designed to minimize court supervision.
The Court of Appeals noted that Chapter 360 is not included within the provisions specifically applicable to independent administrations under the Texas Estates Code. The court cited Baker v. Hammett, which held that “the application of the Probate Code to independent administrations is limited; deference is allowed in order to free the independent executor from judicial supervision and to effect the distribution of the estate with a minimum of costs and delays.”
However, the court recognized that other statutes suggest Chapter 360 provisions might become applicable to independent administrations under certain circumstances. Sections 405.001(b)(1) and 405.008 of the Texas Estates Code indicate that partition and distribution provisions for supervised estates can apply to independent administrations at later stages of the proceedings.
Rather than definitively resolving this question, the Richards court assumed without deciding that Chapter 360 applied to the proceeding. This approach allowed the court to reach the more fundamental question of whether the chapter grants beneficiaries unilateral rights to compel partition in kind, regardless of other circumstances.
What Aabout the Court-Appointed Receiver?
The appointment of a receiver added another layer of complexity to the Richards case. The receiver had broad authority to manage estate assets and sell unused property, which she exercised by approving the sale to Donna. This created a potential conflict between the receiver’s authority and any partition rights under Chapter 360.
Donna argued that the receiver appointment had the effect of “taking the probate out of administration” and thus removing it from the application of the Texas Estates Code entirely. However, the Court of Appeals found no authority supporting this proposition. The court noted that it had “found none to the effect that the appointment of a receiver in a probate case causes the provisions of the Estates Code to no longer be applicable.”
The court’s analysis suggests that receiver appointments do not eliminate statutory rights but may affect how those rights are exercised. The receiver’s authority to sell unused property aligned with the court’s discretion to deny partition when property is not capable of fair division. Both the receiver’s authority and the court’s discretion serve the same underlying goal of maximizing estate value for beneficiaries.
The timing of various proceedings also proved important. Debbie’s partition request preceded the receiver’s sale approval, but the court found that both matters related back to her broader request for partition and distribution of the entire estate. This interconnection meant that the orders were not final and appealable until the court entered a severance order addressing all related claims.
The Richards case suggests that receiver appointments and partition rights can coexist, but courts will consider the receiver’s judgment about what serves the estate’s best interests when evaluating partition requests. Beneficiaries cannot simply ignore receiver recommendations by invoking partition rights if the underlying circumstances support the receiver’s position.
The Takeaway
This decision clarifies that Chapter 360 of the Texas Estates Code grants beneficiaries the right to request partition of estate property, but courts retain significant discretion in determining whether to grant such requests. The statute’s use of “may” rather than “shall” in key provisions demonstrates legislative intent to provide courts with flexibility rather than create absolute beneficiary rights. This discretion allows courts to consider practical factors like the nature of the property, the costs of partition, and whether division would serve the beneficiaries’ actual interests.
Our Dallas Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with probate litigation and partition actions. 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.
