Court Affirmed Rejection Of Executor As Being Unsuitable Who Had Assaulted A Beneficiary

In In re Est. of Terrell, the decedent Sue died on May 15, 2010. No. 12-25-00177-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8901 (Tex. App.—Tyler November 19, 2025, pet. denied). In August 2022, Sue’s son Donald Ray Terrell filed an application for independent administration of Sue’s estate. After learning that Sue had a will, Donald filed an application to appoint a temporary dependent administrator and for issuance of letters testamentary. The will named her son, Howard Jr., as an alternate executor, the original executor had predeceased the decedent. Following a hearing, the trial court appointed another of Sue’s sons, Michael Terrell, as dependent administrator of Sue’s estate because Howard Jr. was unsuitable to serve. Howard Jr. appealed.

The court of appeals first discussed the standards for appointing representatives:

The Texas Estates Code provides the following priority to qualified persons in the appointment of an administrator: (1) the person named as executor in the decedent’s will; (1-a) the person designated as administrator as authorized under Section 254.006; (2) the decedent’s surviving spouse; (3) the principal devisee of the decedent; (4) any devisee of the decedent; (5) the next of kin of the decedent; (6) a creditor of the decedent; (7) any person of good character residing in the county who applies for the letters; (8) any other person who is not disqualified under Section 304.003; and (9) any appointed public probate administrator. Tex. Est. Code Ann. § 304.001(a) (West 2020). When applicants are equally entitled, letters shall be granted to the applicant who, in the judgment of the court, is most likely to administer the estate advantageously, or they may be granted to any two or more of such applicants. Id. § 304.001(c). The estates code also deems certain persons statutorily disqualified to serve as an executor, including a “person whom the court finds unsuitable.” Id. § 304.003(a)(5) (West Supp. 2024). The trial court is granted broad discretion in determining whether an individual is suitable to serve as an executor or administrator.

Id. The court then held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Howard Jr. was unsuitable:

Howard Jr. urges the trial court erred in disqualifying him as executor because he was not convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He urges that because he completed his deferred adjudication, the charge should not be considered against him. Contrary to Howard Jr.’s assertion, the trial court did not find him unsuitable due to a criminal conviction. Instead, it determined that Howard Jr.’s admission that he committed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against another heir to the estate deemed him unsuitable.

Id. The court then affirmed the appointment of Michael because, even though he was not a resident of Texas, he followed the Estate’s Code’s requirements and appointed an agent in Texas.