In Re Catherine Goodman

In Re Catherine Goodman, 02-26-00061-CV, February 26, 2026.

On appeal from the 355th District Court of Hood County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Second Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief after a district court denied a Rule 91a motion to dismiss a probate-related claim filed in the wrong forum. The court held that under Texas Estates Code Section 355.064(a), a claimant must file suit on a rejected claim specifically in the court of original probate jurisdiction where the estate is pending within ninety days, or the claim is forever barred.

Relevance to Family Law

For the Texas family law practitioner, this case underscores the jurisdictional peril inherent when an ex-spouse or an obligated parent dies during or after litigation. Whether seeking to enforce a property division, collect unpaid child support, or satisfy an alimony obligation against a decedent's estate, the Family Code must yield to the strict procedural mandates of the Estates Code. Mistakenly filing an enforcement action in the family district court rather than the specific court exercising probate jurisdiction will result in a fatal, non-curable bar to recovery once the ninety-day rejection window expires.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The litigation arose following the death of Lonnie Ledbetter, Jr., who had contracted with Chris Thomas Custom Homes (CTCH) for home construction. A contested probate proceeding was initiated in the County Court of Hood County, where Catherine Goodman was appointed as Temporary Dependent Administrator. CTCH filed an authenticated matured secured claim in the probate case for over $101,000. Goodman rejected the claim on August 7, 2025. To preserve its claim, CTCH was required to file suit within ninety days. While CTCH did file suit in September 2025, it chose to do so in the 355th District Court of Hood County rather than the County Court where the probate was pending. Goodman moved to dismiss the district court suit under Rule 91a, arguing the claims were statutorily barred because they were filed in the wrong court. The district court denied the motion, leading Goodman to seek mandamus relief.

Issues Decided

1. Does a claimant satisfy the requirements of Texas Estates Code Section 355.064(a) by filing suit in a district court when the probate proceeding is pending in a different county court?
2. Is a Rule 91a motion to dismiss the appropriate vehicle to challenge a claim that is statutorily barred under the Estates Code?
3. Is mandamus relief appropriate when a trial court refuses to dismiss a claim that is legally barred by the Estates Code?

Rules Applied

• Texas Estates Code § 355.064(a): This statute dictates that a rejected claim is barred unless the claimant commences suit in the "court of original probate jurisdiction in which the estate is pending" within 90 days of the rejection.
• Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a: Permits the dismissal of a cause of action that has no basis in law or fact, which includes claims barred by a complete legal defense.
• Substance-over-Form Principle: Texas courts look to the factual predicate of the claim (the "gist" of the complaint) rather than the specific legal theories pleaded to determine if the suit constitutes the "same claim" that was rejected in probate.
• Standard for Mandamus: Mandamus is available to correct a trial court's abuse of discretion in denying a Rule 91a motion to dismiss.

Application

The court conducted a de novo review of the statutory language, finding Section 355.064(a) to be unambiguous. The claimant’s primary defense was that its district court suit included additional legal theories—such as quantum meruit and foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien—that were not explicitly part of the initial probate claim. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that Texas law prioritizes substance over form. Because the "factual gist" of the district court lawsuit was the same debt rejected by the administrator, the claimant could not circumvent the Estates Code by re-labeling the causes of action. The court further determined that because the County Court of Hood County was the court of original probate jurisdiction, the 355th District Court was the incorrect forum. By the time the administrator filed the Rule 91a motion, the ninety-day window had closed, rendering the claim "statutorily barred." Consequently, the claim had "no basis in law," making dismissal under Rule 91a mandatory.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the plain language of Section 355.064(a) requires a suit on a rejected claim to be filed in the specific court where the probate is pending. Filing in a court of concurrent general jurisdiction, such as a district court, does not satisfy the statute. The court further held that when a claimant fails to meet this filing requirement, the claim is legally extinguished. In such instances, a trial court abuses its discretion by denying a Rule 91a motion to dismiss. Mandamus relief was conditionally granted, directing the district court to vacate its order and dismiss the claims against the estate.

Practical Application

Family law litigators must be hyper-vigilant when a party to a decree dies. If you are representing a creditor-spouse, the following applies:

• Forum Control: Do not assume the district court that issued your Divorce Decree or SAPCR order has jurisdiction to hear an enforcement action against a deceased party's estate.
• The 90-Day Trap: The moment you receive a rejection of a probate claim, the clock is ticking. You must file a new lawsuit in the probate court, even if you already have an ongoing enforcement matter in a family court.
• Theory-Proofing: Do not rely on adding "new" causes of action (like breach of fiduciary duty or fraud) to save a late filing. If the underlying debt is the same, the court will treat it as a barred probate claim.

Checklists

Venue and Jurisdiction Check

• Identify the court where the decedent’s Application for Probate was filed.
• Confirm if the county has a Statutory Probate Court or if probate is handled by a County Court at Law.
• Verify that your subsequent lawsuit is filed in that exact court, not merely a court in the same county.

Statutory Compliance

• Verify the date of the administrator's rejection of the claim.
• Calculate the 90-day deadline from the date of the rejection memorandum, not the date of receipt.
• Ensure the lawsuit is "commenced" (filed) before the expiration of the 90th day.

Rule 91a Defense (For Administrators)

• Review the claimant’s petition and attached exhibits for the rejection date.
• If the claimant filed in the wrong court, wait for the 90-day window to close.
• File a Rule 91a motion immediately, as the bar is a "legal" issue determinable from the face of the pleadings.

Citation

In re Catherine Goodman, In Her Capacity as Temporary Dependent Administrator of the Estate of Lonnie K. Ledbetter, Jr., Deceased, 02-26-00061-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 26, 2026, orig. proceeding).

Full Opinion

The full opinion can be accessed here: Full Opinion

Family Law Crossover

This ruling provides a powerful offensive tool for estate administrators in the wake of a family law litigant's death. If an ex-spouse files a claim for a significant property equalization payment or a large child support arrearage, the administrator can reject the claim and effectively "bait" the claimant into filing an enforcement action in the original family district court. If the claimant’s counsel fails to realize that the Estates Code requires filing in the specific probate court, the administrator can wait out the ninety days and then move for dismissal. This maneuver effectively "cleans" the estate of family law liabilities that would otherwise be non-dischargeable, purely through the claimant’s procedural error. ~~427f6d1d-a028-4dc5-b249-b43e3f85147a~~