A caregiver provides services to an elderly woman for over a year. After the woman dies, the caregiver presents claims to the woman’s daughter, who serves as independent executrix of the estate. The daughter ignores the claims. The caregiver waits nearly a year before filing suit to recover payment for her services.
Under the Texas Probate Code, and now the Texas Estates Code, claims presented to most estate representatives must be acted upon within thirty days. If the representative fails to allow or reject a claim within that time, the claim is deemed rejected. The claimant must then file suit within ninety days or the claim is barred forever. These provisions create strict deadlines designed to ensure the prompt settlement of estates.
The question is whether these requirements apply to independent executors? Texas law has long recognized independent administration as a special form of estate administration free from court supervision. When a testator directs in his will that the estate be independently administered, the executor operates without ongoing court involvement. Does this independence extend to the claims presentation process?
The case of Bunting v. Pearson, 430 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. 1968), provides an opportunity to examine how the Texas Probate Code treats claims against independently administered estates. The dispute centered on whether the strict procedural requirements governing claims against court-supervised estates also apply to independent executors.
Facts & Procedural History
Grace worked as a caregiver for Bertha. She provided services to Bertha between April 1963 and April 1964. Bertha died. Her will appointed her daughter Anita as independent executrix of her estate. The will was duly probated.
In 1964, Grace presented a claim to Anita for $1,200.00. Anita took no action on the claim. On January 13, 1965, Grace presented another claim to Anita. This second claim detailed the specific services Grace had rendered to Bertha. Again, Anita took no action.
On July 19, 1965—nearly a year after presenting her first claim—Grace filed suit against Anita as executrix. The suit sought to recover the reasonable value of services rendered to Bertha. These alleged services formed the basis of the claims Grace had previously presented to Anita.
Anita filed a motion for summary judgment. She argued that Grace’s failure to file suit within ninety days after the claims were deemed rejected barred recovery. The trial court overruled the motion. After a jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment for Grace in the amount of $1,200.00.
Anita appealed. The court of appeals reversed. The appellate court held that the general provisions of the Probate Code, now the Estates Code, regulating claims procedures were applicable to independent executors. Under Section 310 of the Code, Anita’s failure to act on Grace’s claims within thirty days constituted rejection. Under Section 313, Grace was required to file suit within ninety days of that rejection. Because Grace waited nearly a year to file suit, the court of appeals held that her claim was barred. The Texas Supreme Court granted Grace’s petition for review to weigh in on this issue.
How Texas Law Treated Independent Executors Before the Probate Code
Prior to adoption of the Texas Probate Code in 1955, the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that the general provisions of the statutes regulating procedures for establishing claims against estates were not applicable to estates administered by independent executors. Three cases established this principle.
For example, in Smyth v. Caswell, 65 Tex. 379 (1886), the Court first recognized that independent executors operated outside the normal claims procedures. In Roy v. Whitaker, 92 Tex. 346, 48 S.W. 892 (1898), the Court reaffirmed this position. In Fischer v. Britton, 125 Tex. 505, 83 S.W.2d 305 (1935), the Court again held that independent executors were not subject to the procedural requirements governing court-supervised administrations.
The rationale was straightforward. Independent administration existed as an alternative to court supervision. When a testator directed that his estate be independently administered, he manifested his desire that the executor handle estate matters without court involvement. Subjecting the independent executor to the same procedures required for court-supervised estates would defeat this purpose.
Independent executors nevertheless remained bound by substantive requirements. They had to classify claims properly. They had to pay claims in the correct order of priority. They had to prorate claims when estate assets proved insufficient to pay all claims in full. These substantive requirements ensured fair treatment of creditors regardless of the form of administration.
Does Section 146 Make Sections 309, 310, and 313 Applicable to Independent Executors?
The respondent argued that Section 146 makes the claims procedures applicable to independent executors. That section requires independent executors to “receive presentation of and classify, allow, and pay, or reject, claims against the estate in the same order of priority, classification, and proration prescribed in this Code.”
The Supreme Court rejected this argument. Prior to adoption of the Code, courts had held that independent executors were required to handle claims in accordance with provisions dealing with classifications, priority, and proration of claims. Section 146 simply carried forward the law as it existed before the Code was adopted.
The phrase “in the same order of priority, classification, and proration prescribed in this code” refers to Section 322 dealing with classification, Section 321 dealing with proration, and Section 320 dealing with priority. The only other part of the Code that Section 146 references is the section dealing with exempt property and allowances.
No language in Section 146 can reasonably be construed to refer to Sections 309, 310, and 313 in such a way as to make them applicable to independent executors. Section 146 addresses substantive requirements for handling claims. It does not impose the procedural requirements designed for court-supervised administrations.
Bunting Applies Today Under the Texas Estates Code
In 2014, the Texas Legislature reorganized probate law by moving it from the Texas Probate Code to the newly created Texas Estates Code. This reorganization renumbered the statutes discussed in Bunting but did not change their substance or the principles established by the case.
The key provisions that Bunting interpreted now appear in the Texas Estates Code as follows. Section 22.031 replaced the former Section 3 and continues to define “personal representative” to include independent executors. However, it maintains the same qualification: including independent executors in this definition “may not be construed to subject an independent executor to the control of the courts in probate matters with respect to settlement of estates, except as expressly provided by law.”
Section 351.151 replaced former Section 146. It still requires independent executors to “receive and act on a claim against the estate” and to “classify, pay, or reject a claim in the same order of priority, classification, and proration” prescribed by the Estates Code. This section continues to impose substantive requirements on independent executors without subjecting them to court supervision.
The three procedural sections at issue in Bunting now appear as Sections 308.001, 308.004, and 308.053. Section 308.001 requires representatives to endorse allowance or rejection on claims within thirty days. Section 308.004 provides that failure to endorse within thirty days constitutes rejection. Section 308.053 requires suit on rejected claims within ninety days or the claim is barred. Just as the Supreme Court held in Bunting, these procedural requirements do not apply to independent executors because applying them would subject independent executors to court supervision in a manner not “expressly provided by law.”
The Bunting analysis therefore applies with equal force under the current Estates Code. Independent executors remain free from the deemed-rejection and ninety-day deadline provisions. They must follow substantive rules about proper classification and priority of claims. However, they operate without the procedural mechanisms designed for court-supervised administrations. Creditors presenting claims to independent executors must pursue their remedies under general statutes of limitations rather than the specific deadlines that apply to dependent administrations.
Here’s a section you can add:
What Statute of Limitations Applies to Claims Against Independent Executors?
Because the Estates Code’s strict procedural deadlines do not apply to independent executors, creditors must look to general statutes of limitations to determine how long they have to pursue claims. The applicable limitation period depends on the nature of the underlying claim rather than on special probate rules.
For most contract claims, the general four-year statute of limitations under Section 16.004 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code applies. This means a creditor who provided goods or services under a contract generally has four years from when the claim accrued to file suit against an independent executor. Claims for debt or other contractual obligations fall within this four-year window.
For claims based on oral agreements or accounts, a two-year statute of limitations applies under Section 16.003 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. This shorter period applies when the agreement was not reduced to writing or when the claim is for an open account.
Tort claims against estates also follow their standard limitation periods. Personal injury claims generally must be brought within two years. Property damage claims typically have a two-year limitation period as well. These periods run from the date the cause of action accrued rather than from the date of the decedent’s death.
The practical effect is that creditors have significantly more time to pursue claims against independent executors than against dependent estates. While a creditor against a dependent administration faces a ninety-day deadline after deemed rejection, a creditor against an independent executor may have two to four years depending on the claim type. This extended timeframe reflects the Legislature’s decision to treat independent administrations differently and allow them to operate outside the compressed timeline of court-supervised probate.
Creditors should nevertheless act promptly. Even though longer limitation periods apply, independent executors have authority to distribute estate assets once debts are paid. A creditor who delays too long may find that estate assets have been distributed to beneficiaries. While the creditor’s claim against the estate may still be timely under general limitation statutes, recovering from beneficiaries who received distributions can prove more difficult than recovering from estate assets in the executor’s hands.
The Takeaway
The Texas Supreme Court preserved the traditional independence of independent executors from court supervision by holding that the strict procedural requirements for presenting and pursuing claims against estates do not apply to independent administration. Creditors who present claims to independent executors cannot rely on the deemed-rejection and ninety-day deadline provisions that apply to other estate representatives. Instead, they must pursue their claims under general principles of law rather than the specific procedures created for court-supervised probate. The Legislature’s careful definition stating that including independent executors in the term “representative” shall not subject them to court control except as expressly provided means that courts cannot expand supervision over independent executors beyond what the Code specifically and explicitly requires.
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.
