Family members often monitor guardianship proceedings from a distance. They receive occasional updates about their loved one’s care. They might attend a hearing or two. They review court filings when they arrive in the mail. But they don’t formally oppose every motion or challenge every decision the guardian makes. Many assume they can always step in later if serious problems develop.
Texas law grants “interested persons” certain rights in guardianship proceedings. These individuals can receive notice of court filings, attend hearings, and file objections when they disagree with a guardian’s actions. However, the law doesn’t require interested persons to actively participate. Someone can remain on the sidelines during a guardianship, saying nothing while the guardian makes decisions about the ward’s care, property, and living arrangements.
What happens when an interested person who stayed quiet during the guardianship later files a lawsuit challenging the guardian’s conduct? Can the guardian argue that the interested person already had their chance to object in probate court and lost the right to sue later? Does the legal doctrine of claim preclusion—which prevents people from relitigating issues they already had an opportunity to contest—apply to interested persons who chose not to participate actively in guardianship proceedings?
A federal district court decision examining Texas guardianship law, Johnston v. Dexel, 373 F. Supp. 3d 764 (S.D. Tex. 2019), provides an opportunity to consider these questions about how Texas courts might treat interested persons who remain passive during guardianship proceedings but later sue the guardian.
Facts & Procedural History
Willie Jo suffered strokes in 1999 and 2007 that left her severely impaired. In 2009, a Texas probate court appointed David as Mills’s guardian of the person and estate. Dexel hired Ginger and GSL Care Management to handle Mills’s day-to-day care. Mills lived at Silverado, a nursing home, where her daughter Sherry visited frequently.
Starting in 2012, Johnston grew concerned about the quality of her mother’s care at Silverado. Mills suffered recurring urinary tract infections and other medical problems. Johnston complained to Dexel about these issues. The relationship between Johnston and Dexel deteriorated. In May 2013, Silverado moved Mills to a section housing residents with behavioral problems. That month, Silverado banned Johnston from visiting after Johnston protested about Mills’s treatment.
In June 2013, Mills fell from her wheelchair and broke several bones in her leg. Dexel discontinued Mills’s physical therapy during recovery. That same month, Dexel filed a motion to have Clarinda appointed as Mills’s guardian ad litem to investigate Mills’s condition. Judge Christine Butts granted the motion. Comstock filed a report in September 2013 finding that Mills had received good care at Silverado but that Silverado had decided to evict Mills due to Johnston’s disruptive behavior.
Johnston continued demanding that Dexel move Mills to a different facility and threatened to seek Dexel’s removal as guardian. Dexel responded by filing an application to resign and requesting appointment of a successor guardian. According to Johnston, Dexel, Lott, Comstock, and Judge Butts held an illegal ex parte meeting on September 17, 2013, during which Judge Butts accepted Dexel’s resignation and appointed Lott as Mills’s new guardian.
In October 2013, Lott moved Mills from Silverado to Hampton Nursing Home. In December 2013, Johnston’s sister Cindy Pierce filed an emergency application for a temporary restraining order alleging that Lott was neglecting Mills’s care. Judge Butts held a hearing where Johnston and Pierce testified. The court found no basis for immediately removing Lott but scheduled the matter for trial.
In April 2014, Pierce filed a second emergency application for a temporary restraining order against Lott with similar allegations. Judge Butts’s guardianship coordinator informed Pierce’s counsel that the court would not schedule a hearing because the court saw no emergency and the case would be tried within two weeks. Mills died on September 27, 2014, while the guardianship dispute remained ongoing.
Johnston sued Dexel in Texas state court in September 2016. The defendants removed the case to federal court. After multiple rounds of motions and amended complaints, Johnston’s only remaining claim against Dexel was for breach of fiduciary duty. Johnston alleged that Dexel violated his fiduciary duties to Mills by billing attorney’s fees for non-legal services that should have been billed at a guardian’s rate.
Dexel moved for summary judgment, arguing that Johnston lacked capacity to sue and that claim preclusion barred Johnston’s claim. Dexel contended that Johnston was an “interested person” in the guardianship proceeding who could have opposed his fee applications when he submitted them to the probate court. Because Johnston had an opportunity to challenge the fees during the guardianship but chose not to, Dexel argued that claim preclusion prevented her from suing about the fees now.
Johnston responded that Dexel never properly served her with his final report or application to resign, giving her no opportunity to oppose Lott’s appointment or Dexel’s actions. The federal court faced the question of whether claim preclusion applies to interested persons in Texas guardianship proceedings who had the right to participate but chose not to object to a guardian’s conduct.
What Status Do Interested Persons Have in Texas Guardianship Proceedings?
The Texas Estates Code defines an “interested person” as “an heir, devisee, spouse, creditor, or any other having a property right in or claim against an estate being administered” and any person “interested in the welfare of an incapacitated person.” This broad definition encompasses family members, friends, caregivers, and anyone with economic interests in the ward or the ward’s estate.
A person doesn’t need to apply for interested-person status. The designation arises automatically based on the person’s relationship to the ward or interest in the ward’s welfare. The Texas Estates Code provides no procedures for opting out of interested-person status. However, when an interested person files a claim or motion in a guardianship proceeding, that person must plead and prove their status as an interested person.
Interested persons receive procedural rights under the Texas Estates Code. They have rights to notice of filings, hearings, and probate court actions. They may appear at hearings, file motions or applications, submit pleadings or objections, and appeal final probate court actions. These rights allow interested persons to monitor guardianship proceedings and intervene when they believe the guardian is mishandling the ward’s care or property.
However, the statute grants these rights permissively rather than mandating participation. An interested person may oppose a guardian’s appointment, challenge a guardian’s actions, or contest fee applications. The law doesn’t require interested persons to exercise these rights. Someone can maintain interested-person status throughout a guardianship without ever filing an objection or attending a hearing.
How Do Texas Guardianship Proceedings Differ from Traditional Litigation?
Texas guardianships operate differently from adversarial lawsuits between opposing parties. Guardianships exist “to promote and protect the well-being of the incapacitated person.” The process permits input from multiple people who care about the ward rather than framing disputes as contests between two sides.
The non-adversarial nature affects how people become involved in guardianships. In regular litigation, parties must be formally joined through service of process or court order. A defendant who isn’t properly served can’t be bound by a judgment. Guardianship proceedings work differently. Only the proposed ward, that person’s immediate family, and caregivers must be served with notice of guardianship proceedings. The County Clerk issues a general citation informing “all persons interested in the welfare of the proposed ward” to appear if they wish to contest the application, but these people don’t receive individual service.
Interested persons may request that the County Clerk inform them “of all, or any specified, motions, applications, or pleadings filed with respect to the proceeding.” This request-based notification system means interested persons bear responsibility for monitoring proceedings that concern them. An interested person might not receive actual notice of every guardianship development. Someone unfamiliar with the system might not know they should request notification of filings.
The procedural differences between guardianships and adversarial litigation matter when considering whether claim preclusion should apply. Traditional preclusion doctrine developed in the context of adversarial lawsuits where parties received formal notice and had clear opportunities to litigate issues. Guardianships don’t provide the same formal structure.
What Is Claim Preclusion and How Does It Normally Work?
Claim preclusion, also called res judicata, bars claims that have been or could have been litigated in an earlier suit. The doctrine serves several purposes: bringing finality to litigation, preventing vexatious litigation, maintaining stability of court decisions, promoting judicial economy, and preventing double recovery.
To establish claim preclusion, the party asserting the defense must show three elements. First, a court of competent jurisdiction made a final determination on the merits. Second, the actions involved the same parties or those in privity with them. Third, the second action asserts claims that were raised or could have been raised in the first action.
The “same parties” requirement reflects a fundamental principle: people generally aren’t bound by judgments in suits where they weren’t parties. Someone who had no opportunity to present their case shouldn’t lose the right to sue because someone else litigated similar issues. Texas recognizes an exception for people “in privity” with the original parties. Privity exists when parties share an identity of interests in the basic legal right that is the subject of litigation.
The “could have been raised” language in the third element is significant. Claim preclusion doesn’t just bar claims someone actually litigated in the earlier proceeding. It also bars claims the person could have brought if they had chosen to do so. Someone who participates in litigation but fails to assert all available claims loses the opportunity to bring those claims later. This aspect of claim preclusion encourages parties to present all their claims in one proceeding rather than pursuing piecemeal litigation.
Could Claim Preclusion Apply to Interested Persons in Guardianships?
Dexel’s preclusion defense raised difficult questions about how established preclusion doctrine should apply in the guardianship context. Johnston was undeniably an interested person in Mills’s guardianship. As Mills’s daughter, Johnston had both a familial relationship with the ward and an economic interest in Mills’s estate. This status gave Johnston the right to oppose Dexel’s fee applications when he submitted them to the probate court.
Dexel submitted multiple applications for guardian fees during his service as Mills’s guardian. Each application included billing statements showing the hours Dexel worked and the rates he charged. The probate court approved each fee application. Johnston never opposed any of these applications during the guardianship proceedings. She didn’t object to Dexel’s fees, didn’t challenge his billing practices, and didn’t argue that he was charging attorney rates for non-legal work.
From Dexel’s perspective, Johnston had her chance to contest his fees during the guardianship. The probate court provided a forum where interested persons could raise objections. Johnston received notice of the proceedings and had the procedural rights to challenge Dexel’s conduct. She chose not to exercise those rights. Under traditional preclusion principles, someone who fails to raise available claims in an earlier proceeding loses the opportunity to assert them later.
However, several factors complicate applying preclusion doctrine to interested persons in guardianships. First, interested persons aren’t parties to guardianship proceedings in the traditional sense. They aren’t named as plaintiffs or defendants. They don’t get served with complaints. They don’t have to file answers. Their involvement is voluntary and permissive rather than mandatory.
Second, interested persons might not receive actual notice of every development in a guardianship. Unlike parties in adversarial litigation who receive copies of all filings, interested persons must request notification. Someone who doesn’t request comprehensive notice might not know about fee applications until long after the probate court approved them.
Third, interested persons might not understand that failing to object during the guardianship could preclude later challenges. Many interested persons lack legal representation. They might not know they should oppose fee applications or that silence could forfeit their rights. The non-adversarial nature of guardianships might lull interested persons into thinking they can remain passive observers without consequences.
What Makes This a Novel Question Under Texas Law?
The federal court examining Johnston’s claims found that neither the Texas Supreme Court nor intermediate Texas appellate courts had addressed whether claim preclusion applies to interested persons in guardianship proceedings. This gap in Texas law created uncertainty about how to resolve Dexel’s preclusion defense.
The court identified specific unresolved questions. Is an interested person a “party” in a guardianship proceeding for claim-preclusion purposes? When does a guardianship count as a previous “action” sufficient to trigger preclusion? Guardianships involve continuing proceedings with multiple hearings and decisions over time rather than single discrete lawsuits. At what point does the guardianship become final enough to support preclusion?
The court also grappled with how to balance competing interests. A rule extending claim preclusion to all interested persons regardless of their actual participation would risk unfairness. Someone who never received meaningful notice of fee applications shouldn’t necessarily lose the right to challenge them later. An interested person who attended a few hearings but didn’t understand the legal significance of remaining silent might deserve an opportunity to assert claims.
On the other hand, a rule completely exempting interested persons from preclusion would undermine the doctrine’s purposes. Guardians would face the threat of litigation years after the probate court approved their actions. Court decisions would lack finality. Interested persons could sit silently during guardianship proceedings, wait to see how matters turn out, and then sue if they dislike the results. This strategic behavior would increase costs for guardians and create uncertainty about closed guardianships.
The court recognized that the proper rule likely falls somewhere between these extremes but couldn’t identify where the line should be drawn. How much participation in a guardianship should be required before preclusion applies? Does it matter whether the interested person received actual notice of the specific actions they later challenge? Should interested persons represented by counsel be treated differently from those without lawyers? These questions touch on family relationships, estate management, and care for vulnerable people—areas where Texas state courts have particular expertise.
Why Did the Federal Court Decline to Answer These Questions?
Federal courts hearing state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction face a choice when confronting novel state-law questions. They can predict how the state’s highest court would answer the questions and issue a decision. Or they can remand the case to state court and let state judges address unsettled questions of state law.
The federal court in Johnston chose to remand. Several factors influenced this decision. First, all of Johnston’s federal-law claims had been dismissed. The only remaining claim was Johnston’s state-law fiduciary duty claim against Dexel. When federal claims are dismissed before trial, federal courts often remand remaining state-law claims. Courts recognize that state judges have superior familiarity with state law and that federal court predictions about state law can be “uncertain and ephemeral.”
Second, the preclusion defense couldn’t be avoided. The court examined whether it could grant summary judgment on other grounds, which would have eliminated the need to address the preclusion issue. But the court found genuine factual disputes about whether Dexel breached his fiduciary duty by billing attorney rates for non-legal work. The record showed that Dexel charged his attorney rate for tasks like visiting Mills at her care home, discussing Christmas gifts with family members, and preparing annual reports—activities that appeared to be guardian duties rather than legal services. These factual disputes prevented summary judgment and meant the preclusion question had to be resolved.
Third, the questions at stake had broader significance beyond this single case. The answers would affect how Texas guardianship proceedings operate and what obligations interested persons have to protect their rights. These issues touch on the Texas probate system and the care of vulnerable individuals. State courts are better positioned to consider the policy implications and craft rules that fit within Texas’s broader legal framework.
The Takeaway
Texas law grants interested persons rights to participate in guardianship proceedings without requiring active involvement. An interested person can monitor a guardianship from the sidelines, choosing to object to some actions but not others, without forfeiting interested-person status. However, this permissive participation creates uncertainty about whether interested persons who stay silent during guardianships can later sue guardians over conduct they could have challenged in probate court. The Johnston decision left this question unanswered, finding that Texas courts need to determine whether claim preclusion applies to interested persons and under what circumstances. Until Texas appellate courts provide guidance, interested persons face risk when they choose passive observation over active participation. Someone who objects to a guardian’s fee application during the guardianship has clearly exercised their rights and preserved potential claims. Someone who never opposes the fees might later discover that their silence foreclosed the opportunity to challenge the guardian’s conduct. The safest approach for interested persons who have concerns about a guardian’s actions is to raise objections during the guardianship rather than waiting to sue later. This active participation creates a record of the interested person’s concerns and avoids any argument that the person had an opportunity to litigate issues but failed to do so. Family members who want to preserve their rights should request notification of all guardianship filings, review fee applications and other submissions carefully, and file objections when they disagree with the guardian’s conduct or charges.
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 probate administrations. 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.
