It is common for families to transfer real estate from one generation to another. This often results in probate disputes, particularly when ownership questions are not fully discussed and the transfers are discovered years after the person who made the transfer died.
These situations become particularly complex when the disputed property has connections to a probate estate. This leads parties to assume that probate courts automatically have authority to resolve all related disputes. The reality proves far more nuanced, especially when property may have passed outside the probate process entirely.
This jurisdictional complexity recently surfaced in a Nolan County case of United States Gypsum Co. v. Burt Lee Burnett, 2025 WL 1534952 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2025, no pet.), which provides an opportunity to consider when a probate court can consider real estate disputes.
Facts & Procedural History
The dispute began with what appeared to be a routine probate administration. The decedent passed away in 2018. His wife Sheila filed an application to probate his will in Nolan County Court. The probate proceeding was later transferred to the 1st Multicounty Court at Law of Nolan County in 2023. Sheila served as the independent executor of the estate.
The property in question had a more complicated history. According to the pleadings, the husband and the surviving spouse’s son had acquired the property through a general warranty deed from his parents in 2012. This transfer occurred more than five years before the father’s death. The deed was properly filed in the Nolan County Clerk’s Office. Burt allowed his family to continue using the property. He permitted his brother and nephew to dispose of scrap materials on the property.
United States Gypsum Company filed a separate lawsuit in February 2022. They sued in the 32nd District Court of Nolan County against the husband’s brother and nephew. U.S. Gypsum claimed ownership of the same property and sought to recover costs. They asserted claims for negligence, trespass, and nuisance related to the waste disposal activities. This litigation resulted in an agreed injunction between those parties.
Rather than defending the district court action or filing a separate suit there, the husband chose a different strategy. In September 2023, he filed suit against U.S. Gypsum in the transferred probate proceeding. He asserted claims for trespass to try title, to quiet title, and for declaratory relief. The husband’s decision to file in the probate court rather than district court would prove to be a jurisdictional misstep with significant consequences.
U.S. Gypsum failed to respond to the husband’s lawsuit. This failure apparently occurred due to a communication breakdown when their registered agent forwarded notice to a paralegal who was on medical leave for brain cancer treatment. On November 9, 2023, the husband moved for a no-answer default judgment. The trial court granted this motion on November 30, 2023. U.S. Gypsum filed a motion for new trial on December 20, 2023. They provided evidence of their ownership claim including a 1923 deed, title report, and property tax statements. The trial court denied the motion for new trial. This denial led to U.S. Gypsum’s appeal challenging both the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and the denial of their motion for new trial.
Section 31.002 & Probate Court Jurisdiction Over Real Property
The Texas Estates Code grants probate courts limited jurisdiction over real property disputes. This authority exists only under specific circumstances outlined in Section 31.002. This provision is an exception to the general rule that district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over real property title disputes in Texas.
Section 31.002(a) provides that in counties without statutory probate courts, matters related to probate proceedings include several enumerated categories. The most relevant provisions for real property disputes are subsections (5) and (6). These grant jurisdiction over “an action for trial of title to real property that is estate property, including the enforcement of a lien against the property” and “an action for trial of the right of property that is estate property.”
The phrase “estate property” serves as a prerequisite for probate court jurisdiction over real property disputes. Under the Texas Estates Code, this term refers to property that was owned by the decedent at the time of death. Such property became subject to distribution through the probate process. Property that passes outside of probate falls outside this definition. This includes property transferred through lifetime transfers, joint ownership arrangements, beneficiary designations, or other non-probate mechanisms.
The Legislature’s use of the specific term “estate property” rather than broader language reflects a deliberate limitation on probate court authority. Courts cannot simply assume jurisdiction over any real property dispute that has some connection to a decedent or probate proceeding. Instead, the property must have been part of the decedent’s probate estate at the time of death to trigger the special jurisdictional provisions of Section 31.002.
What Constitutes “Estate Property” Under Texas Law?
The determination of whether property qualifies as “estate property” depends on ownership and timing.
Property becomes part of a decedent’s estate when the decedent held legal title at the time of death. This property becomes subject to distribution through probate administration. This includes real property owned individually, as a tenant in common, or through other arrangements that do not provide automatic transfer to survivors.
Property that has been transferred during the decedent’s lifetime through valid conveyances typically does not constitute estate property. This is true even if the decedent retained some connection to or use of the property.
The timing and validity of such transfers become central to determining probate court jurisdiction. A valid deed executed and delivered during the decedent’s lifetime generally removes property from the probate estate. This occurs regardless of whether the decedent continued to use or occupy the property.
The analysis becomes more complex when questions arise about the validity or effectiveness of lifetime transfers. If a purported conveyance was invalid due to lack of capacity, fraud, undue influence, or other defects, the property might remain part of the estate despite the existence of a deed. However, allegations challenging the validity of a lifetime transfer do not automatically convert the dispute into one involving “estate property” for jurisdictional purposes.
Courts must look to the pleadings and the nature of the claims to determine whether the property is genuinely at issue as part of the estate. If the plaintiff claims ownership through a valid lifetime transfer and seeks no relief that would affect estate distribution, the property dispute likely falls outside probate court jurisdiction. This is true even if the transfer is later proven invalid.
The Relationship Between Probate Proceedings and Property Disputes
Not every property dispute connected to a probate proceeding falls within the probate court’s jurisdiction under Section 31.002. The Texas Estates Code requires that the matter be “related to a probate proceeding.” This relationship must be more than incidental or tangential. The connection must be sufficient to justify expanding the probate court’s limited jurisdiction beyond its core function of estate administration.
Section 31.002(a)(3) provides another potential avenue for probate court jurisdiction through “a claim brought by a personal representative on behalf of an estate.” This provision recognizes that personal representatives may need to pursue claims to recover estate property or protect estate interests. However, this subsection requires that the claim be brought by the personal representative. Individual beneficiaries or third parties claiming interests in property cannot use this provision.
The distinction between claims brought by personal representatives and those brought by individual beneficiaries reflects the fundamental structure of probate administration. Personal representatives have the authority and duty to pursue claims on behalf of the estate. Beneficiaries generally cannot bring such claims individually unless they fall within specific exceptions for cases where the personal representative cannot or will not act.
Pendant and Ancillary Jurisdiction in Probate Matters
Texas Estates Code Section 32.001(b) grants probate courts pendant and ancillary jurisdiction over non-probate claims when necessary to promote judicial efficiency and economy. This allows probate courts to hear related claims that might otherwise fall outside their jurisdiction. However, this authority exists only when a sufficiently close relationship exists between the non-probate claims and the probate proceeding itself.
The test for exercising pendant and ancillary jurisdiction focuses on whether hearing the additional claims will aid the probate court in efficient estate administration. Courts must find that resolving the ancillary claims is necessary to properly administer the estate or determine estate-related issues. A remote or speculative connection between the claims and estate administration will not suffice.
The Burnett case illustrates the limits of this doctrine. Even if U.S. Gypsum had successfully challenged the validity of the 2012 deed, the resolution would not have affected the administration of the decedent’s estate. The property would either belong to the husband individually (if his deed was valid) or to U.S. Gypsum (if their claim was superior). In neither case would the property become part of the decedent’s probate estate requiring distribution.
Why the Court Found No Jurisdiction in This Case
The appeals court found that the 1st Multicounty Court at Law lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the husband’s claims.
The analysis began with the husabnd’s own pleadings. These alleged that he acquired the disputed property through a 2012 deed from his parents, more than five years before his father’s death in 2018.
Under Section 31.002(a)(5) and (6), the probate court’s jurisdiction extends only to actions involving “estate property.” Burt’s pleadings affirmatively established that the property was not estate property. The property had allegedly passed to him through a valid lifetime transfer well before the decedent’s death. The court noted that the husband made no allegation that the estate claimed any interest in the property. He also made no claim that there was any question about the validity of the 2012 conveyance from the estate’s perspective.
The court also rejected the husband’s argument that Section 31.002(a)(3) provided jurisdiction. That subsection requires claims to be brought by a personal representative on behalf of the estate. The husband brought the claims individually, not as a representative of his father’s estate. His mother Sheila, who served as the independent executor, was not a party to the lawsuit.
Finally, the court found that pendant and ancillary jurisdiction could not save the husband’s claims. They bore no meaningful relationship to the estate administration. Resolving the title dispute between Burt and U.S. Gypsum would not affect the distribution of estate assets or aid in estate administration, regardless of the outcome.
The Takeaway
This case shows that probate court jurisdiction over real property disputes remains limited and specific under Texas law. Property that passes outside of probate through lifetime transfers typically is not subject to probate court litigation. This is true even when family members are involved and probate proceedings are pending. The focus is whether property constitutes “estate property” under the Texas Estates Code and the connection between a property dispute and a probate proceeding must be more than incidental to justify probate court jurisdiction. The property must genuinely be part of the estate subject to probate administration.
Our Dallas Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with probate and property 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!
