law-res-judicata-prior-proceeding-in-bankcrutcy-court | role of bankruptcy court relative to probate estate |
ARE THE ELEMENTS OF RES JUDICATA SATISFIED?
In her second issue, Mrs. Koval briefs the lack of two essential elements to support the summary judgment
on res judicata grounds: (1) lack of privity between herself in her individual capacity and in her capacity as
administratrix, and (2) no final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. Mrs. Koval failed to
preserve her claim that she, in her individual capacity, lacked privity with herself as administratrix of the
estate by not raising this issue before the trial court in her response to the motion for summary judgment.
See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589
S.W.2d 671, 679 (Tex. 1979). Accordingly, Mrs. Koval waived her challenge to privity. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.
Koval v. Kirkland Contractors, Inc. (Tex.App,- Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 15, 2008)(Davie Wilson)
(res judicata based on bankruptcy proceeding, attorney's fees probate code, waiver of issues in
cross-appeal)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Davie Wilson, Senior Justice
Before Judge Wilson, Justices Alcala and Hanks
01-06-00067-CV Linda Koval v. Henry Kirkland Contractors, Inc.
Appeal from Probate Court No 3 of Harris County (Judge Hon. Rory R. Olsen)
Mrs. Koval challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to adjudicate a claim over
property of the estate. Citing Marshall v. Marshall, Mrs. Koval asserts that federal courts lack jurisdiction
to act in probate matters. 392 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2004). Although "it is true that a federal court has
no jurisdiction to probate a will or administer an estate . . . it has been established by a long series of
decisions that federal courts . . . have jurisdiction to entertain suits in favor of creditors" and others
against a decedent's estate to establish their claims as long as the federal court does not interfere with
the probate proceedings in state courts. Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494, 66 S. Ct. 296, 298
(1946). The case relied upon by Mrs. Koval was reversed and remanded by the United States Supreme
Court, which held that a ruling of a Texas probate court that it retained exclusive jurisdiction over all of a
widow's claims against the decedent's stepson could not deprive a federal court of jurisdiction over the
widow's tort claim against the stepson asserted in her bankruptcy proceeding. Marshall v. Marshall, 547
U.S. 293, 126 S. Ct. 1735 (2006). While a federal court is proscribed from exercising its jurisdiction to
disturb or to affect the possession of property in the custody of a state court, it may exercise its
jurisdiction to adjudicate matters outside those confines and otherwise within federal jurisdiction. Id. at
310-11, 1747-48.
Here, the bankruptcy court's judgment was part of a "core proceeding."
Core proceedings include, but are not limited to, determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of
liens. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) (2006). Mrs. Koval filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy. She held out
the property as her own in fee simple. That claim was subject to the debts against the estate. See Tex.
Prob. Code Ann. § 37 (Vernon 2003 and Supp. 2007) ("[W]henever a person dies intestate, all of his
estate vests immediately in his heirs at law, but with the exception aforesaid shall still be liable and subject
in their hands to the payments of the debts of the intestate. . . ."). Kirkland initiated proceedings in the
bankruptcy court to determine the validity, extent, and priority of the lien against the property. Mrs. Koval's
voluntary filing with the bankruptcy court authorized the bankruptcy court to exercise its jurisdiction over
the "core proceeding" to determine the validity of any liens on property she claimed as her own. (1) See
Sigmar v. Anderson, 212 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. App.--Austin 2006, no pet.).
The bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction. Issue two is overruled.