It can be challeging to be a guardian. The process can be time consuming and expensive. This is particularly true when the ward needs funds for their care, but the funds are not liquid.

This raises questions as to whether a guardian can just sell illiquid assets to pay for the wards care expenses? What if waiting for the normal application and approval with the court would take too long?

The court addressed this in Weston v. Nurses Management, No. 03-24-00209-CV (Tex. App.–Austin Jan. 29, 2026). It is a case involving a sale of privately held company to pay for care expenses before the probate court could consider the application for the sale.

Facts & Procedural History

Nurses Management was appointed as the permanent guardian of Glenn’s person and estate. Glenn had been declared partially incapacitated. The guardianship order granted full authority to manage the estate with all powers granted by law.

Glenn’s mother, Elizabeth, served as co-trustee of two trusts for Glenn’s benefit. His brother, Graham, was a director and shareholder of Whittington, a privately held UK company. When the guardian filed its inventory, the estate owned 50 shares of Whittington and it was valued at $450,000.

A year later the estate had a cash crunch. Glenn’s psychiatric care cost $30,000 a month. The estate only had $39,161 in cash. The guardian advanced $148,600 in expenses. Elizabeth refused to make trust distributions for Glenn’s support. That month, a third party offered to purchase Whittington shares at what Graham later testified was the best price in the company’s 75-year history. The guardian needed to commit within days to sell 35 shares for approximately $463,000.

The guardian filed an Application for Sale. A citation was issued the next day. Elizabeth refused to file a waiver or provide a home address for service. Her registered agent could not be located. The guardian filed for substituted service, but the purchase window closed before the court could set a hearing. With the estate nearly out of funds, the guardian consulted Graham and proceeded with the sale and received $423,000.

The guardian then filed an Amended Application for Ratification. Elizabeth objected, claiming fraud. The probate court held a hearing, heard testimony from the guardian and Graham, and ratified the sale that same day. Elizabeth appealed, challenging subject matter jurisdiction, the authority to ratify post-sale, statutory exclusions, proceeds allocation, and notice adequacy.

About Guardianship Jurisdiction in Texas

To understand this case, we have to first consider the jurisdiction of the courts in Texas in guardianship proceedings.

This starts with the question as to what is a guardianship proceeding? Section 1002.015 of the Texas Estates Code defines guardianship proceedings broadly to include applications regarding guardianship.

Section 1022.001 provides that all guardianship proceedings must be filed and heard in a court exercising original probate jurisdiction. The Comal County Court at Law No. 3 had such jurisdiction. The request to sell ward property fell squarely within the probate court’s authority.

Elizabeth raised this issue. She argued the probate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. She asserted that exclusive jurisdiction belonged to a district court under Texas Property Code section 115.001. This section governs proceedings concerning trusts. The appellate court rejected this argument. It noted that the Whittington shares were not trust property. They belonged to Glenn personally and formed part of his guardianship estate.

Statutory Framework for Guardian Sales

Next we have to consider the framework for selling property in guardianship cases in Texas.

The Texas Estates Code provides two ways for guardians to sell property. Section 1158.051 requires guardians to apply for court orders to sell property that is likely to perish, waste, or deteriorate in value, or that will be an expense or disadvantage to the estate if kept.

As a side note, there is a major limitation on this broad category. This section excludes property that is the subject of a specific legacy. Section 22.020 defines legacy as a gift or devise of real or personal property made by a will. We’ll come back to this.

Section 1158.101 provides broader authority, stating the court may order the sale of any estate’s personal property not required to be sold by Section 1158.051 when the sale serves the ward’s best interest to pay care, maintenance, education, administration expenses, and allowances.

That is what the guardian did here. It relied on section 1158.101, not 1158.051, because the shares presented a rare liquidity opportunity rather than a deteriorating property. Notably, Section 1158.102 requires applications to conform to real property sale procedures to the extent possible, acknowledging that strict conformity may not always be feasible.

The Specific Legacy Exception Does Not Apply

This brings us to the primary dispute here. Elizabeth argued the shares qualified as a specific legacy and were excluded from sale.

The courts did not agree. They noted that the guardian sought authorization under section 1158.101, not 1158.051, so the specific legacy exclusion in section 1158.051(b)(2) simply did not apply.

But also, the courts noted that the shares were not property that is the subject of a specific legacy under any circumstances. A legacy is a gift or devise made by a will while Glenn was alive. No evidence showed he had executed a will disposing of the shares. The only evidence showed he owned them personally as guardianship estate assets. The courts noted that this exclusion protects testamentary intent after death. It does not create a permanent bar on selling any property a living ward might theoretically include in a future will.

Can Courts Ratify Guardian Sales After the Fact?

Given the court’s ruling, the question is then whether the court can ratify guardian sales after the fact.

Elizabeth made this argument too. She challenged whether the probate court could approve and ratify the sale after the guardian had completed it.

In this case, the guardian had filed an application before completing the transaction. The appeals court noted that guardian did not circumvent the trial court but instead encountered a practical impossibility created by the compressed timeframe combined with Elizabeth’s refusal to cooperate. Elizabeth refused to waive citation. She refused to provide a home address for service. Her registered agent could not be located. These obstacles forced substituted service. The court would not set a hearing without proper service or waivers. The purchase window would close before the guardian could complete service and obtain a hearing date.

After completing the sale, guardian filed an Amended Application explaining the circumstances and seeking ratification. The court held a full hearing where the guardian presented witnesses explaining why the sale served Glenn’s best interest and why completing the transaction before obtaining court approval proved necessary.

The court concluded that nothing in the statute precludes a probate court from authorizing and approving a sale after the fact when two conditions are met. First, the guardian must have complied with the statute to the extent possible. Second, the probate court must find, in the exercise of its discretion, that the sale served the ward’s best interest.

This interpretation aligns with the fundamental purpose. Guardianships exist to protect and benefit wards. Courts possess broad equitable powers to approve actions taken in good faith for a ward’s benefit when circumstances prevented obtaining prior authorization.

The Takeaway

This case clarifies that Texas probate courts can ratify guardian sales of estate property completed without prior court approval when emergency circumstances prevented obtaining advance authorization. This authority is not unlimited. The guardian has to demonstrate genuine efforts to comply with statutory requirements to the extent possible. The guardian has to show that the sale served the ward’s best interest. The court should then make specific findings supporting ratification based on evidence presented at a hearing. The protects guardians who act in good faith when facing impossible choices between the ward’s welfare and strict procedural compliance.

Do you need help with a probate matter in Austin or the surrounding area?  We are Austin probate attorneys.  We help clients navigate the probate process.   Call today for a free confidential consultation, 512-273-7444.

Our Austin Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with disputes involving guardianships. 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 that 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.