ÿWPCD  7€ÕÖŸ{Éǰ<ÂÊ?XêÿŠI·H{'=[éu%td÷@Ń@ùgkoâ«”Râ®?3%QÿïâûâòÓí2s(b¼zšZåx+ËÕeËà«Ùú?uŸÂó–ƒH×$m’Û µ JoFЏÿ.k]Ñ)UÎØ.7nT7¸ñ4Á½¾ ‡©ùÞ×»ã¯ûcbP!ÛËË`#è«ÖšÍž3˜{‚Ý €Àº.a‰ qJ缺kq}p¥°J"n™µk‡«“Û÷Üf}™OîT‚ã™Iè&‹¼íQÿ§Ûnè¿_…GÔwóCûý®6%P:ucSpɸ íoású…yÿ#5]({5ßÔÉ8 >EªÔ›ç 9ËÖ†8ë‡ ]i<,«s D£ó Ê ¦¹}Ëà+vÅfM1"r ¬ƒA|•YRB’ë%;ÃH±D⪜«Œ³±hð?Ï‚{åãg9HwûVlcåÈêu„.ä@±º±©±÷jIV«Db¹5¢ÂÌg¡iñ¹0κ$X–=<ÎOT,.aà²,`Õäý’÷zÒ)÷3ÃfÔ9PVåð‹ NÉ ^ Ë w@× 4 + m-  d'ÿÿÈÈÈÈdxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(^2MÛ$££Ý ƒ"QÓ!ÝÔ€#X%XX XÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  ÚÚ  Úó óA<< cÿÿ'ô\ `#|xÀ «'ô\ `ŠDxô\  PŽÂCŠP'ô\ `Xoô\  PŽÂCXP'ô\ `¼p‚ô\  PŽÂC¼P'ô\ `Röô\  PŽÂCRP'ô\ `xàô\  PŽÂCxP0ä2¼`Šj}ä2¼P±³kCŠP˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - EnhancedÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(uHš Z‹6Times New Roman Regular X(CQÓ$¡¡Ô€#X%XX XÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  Ó/LÀÄ AZ&Univers Regular”¶V%¬ ·d¸V¹DºD»¼E½¾¿DÀ=G%ing!… ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ"QÓ!ÝÔ€#X%XX XÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ X XX#X%Ôò òñ¶ñÑ8€ XdædÈ8Ññ¶ññ·ñÑ  Ññ·ññµñDRAFT€ñµñREPORT€OF€THE€JOINT€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐONÌSTATUTORY€PROBATE€COURT€JURISDICTIONó óÐ |Ì ÐÌÓ  Óà  àPursuant€to€Ô_ÔH.B.Ô_Ô€3086,€creating€the€Joint€Committee€on€Statutory€Probate€CourtÏJurisdiction€("the€Committee"),€the€Ô_ÔLtÔ_Ô.€Governor€and€the€Speaker€of€the€House€each€appointedÏthree€members€of€this€committee€from€the€membership€of€the€Senate€Jurisprudence€CommitteeÏand€the€House€Judicial€Affairs€Committee,€respectively.€Ô_ÔLtÔ_Ô.€Governor€Bob€Bullock€appointedÏSenator€Jeff€Wentworth€as€Co„Chair€and€appointed€Senators€David€Cain€and€Rodney€Ellis€as€theÏSenate's€additional€members.€Speaker€of€the€House€James€M.€"Pete"€Ô_ÔLaneyÔ_Ô€appointedÏRepresentative€Ô_ÔSenfroniaÔ_Ô€Thompson€as€Co„Chair€and€appointed€Representatives€Will€Ô_ÔHartnettÔ_ÔÏand€Jim€Ô_ÔSolisÔ_Ô€as€the€House's€additional€members.€The€Committee€was€charged€with€studying€theÏstatutory€probate€court€system€of€Texas€and€the€jurisdiction€of€the€various€courts€with€probateÏjurisdiction.€Furthermore,€the€Committee€was€charged€to€make€recommendations€for€legislativeÏaction€concerning€the€appropriate€jurisdiction€of€those€courts.ÌÌà  àNotices€of€the€hearings€were€sent€to€interested€parties.€At€the€initial€hearing€in€CorpusÏChristi,€the€Committee€met€and€took€both€written€and€oral€testimony€from€the€four€statutoryÏcounty€court€judges€of€Ô_ÔNuecesÔ_Ô€County,€two€of€the€three€statutory€county€court€judges€of€Ô_ÔBrazoriaÔ_ÔÏCounty,€the€statutory€probate€judge€of€Galveston€County,€and€the€Presiding€Statutory€ProbateÏJudge€of€Texas€about€their€concerns€regarding€the€statutory€probate€court€system.€WrittenÏtestimony€was€submitted€by€Judge€Nikki€Ô_ÔDeShazoÔ_Ô€of€the€Dallas€County€Probate€Court,€JudgeÏRussell€Austin€of€the€Harris€County€Probate€Court€No.€1,€and€Judge€Guy€Herman€of€the€TravisÏCounty€Probate€Court€No.€1.ÌÌà  àBefore€the€creation€of€the€statutory€probate€courts€and€the€reformation€of€Texas'€probateÏsystem,€it€was€not€uncommon€for€decedents'€estate€administration€to€take€three€or€four€yearsÏbecause€most€estate€issues€were€appealed€to€the€district€courts€for€a€òòtrial€de€novo.€óóOften€an€estateÐ òB Ðwould€have€several€distinct€matters€being€litigated€at€the€two€levels€of€courts€having€probateÏjurisdiction„„the€county€court€with€its€original€probate€jurisdiction€and€the€district€court€with€itsÏappellate€and€related€jurisdiction.€Only€after€the€òòtrial€de€novo€óócould€an€appeal€through€theÐ ¤ô Ðstandard€appellate€system€be€initiated.€The€old€system,€while€slow€and€cumbersome,€had€aÏlogical€basis.€When€the€Texas€probate€court€system€originated,€there€were€very€few€lawyersÏavailable€to€serve€as€judges.€It€was€determined€in€the€early€days€of€statehood€that€theÏconstitutional€county€courts€would€be€the€main€probate€courts€of€the€state€and€there€would€be€noÏrequirement€that€the€county€judge€be€a€lawyer.€Appeal€of€decisions€by€these€non„lawyer€judgesÏwould€be€to€the€state's€district€courts€rather€than€the€appellate€courts€in€the€first€instance.€At€theÏdistrict€court€level,€a€final€decision€would€be€made€by€a€lawyer„judge€due€to€the€requirement€thatÏdistrict€judges€be€licensed€attorneys.€Having€a€lawyer„judge€make€a€determination€in€a€disputeÏoften€satisfied€the€litigants,€making€further€appeals€unnecessary.€Only€after€a€final€decision€byÏthe€district€court€was€entered€could€an€appeal€lie€to€the€appellate€courts.ÌÌà  àAlthough€well„intentioned,€the€old€system€was€constantly€under€attack€because€it€causedÏpersons€to€have€to€proceed€first€before€a€non„lawyer€judge€before€one€could€proceed€before€aÏlawyer„judge€whose€judgment€could€be€reviewed€in€the€appellate€system.€The€creation€ofÏstatutory€probate€courts€was€a€legislative€effort€to€bring€rationality€to€the€probate€system.€AÐ -n(- Ðsystem€of€lawyer„judge€probate€courts€was€established€in€the€largest€metropolitan€counties€of€theÏstate.€Having€statutory€probate€courts€presided€over€by€lawyer„judges€was,€in€part,€an€attempt€toÏreduce€the€number€of€required€appeals€in€the€old€two„appeal€system€by€having€the€initial€decisionÏin€a€probate€dispute€made€by€a€lawyer„judge€who€specialized€in€probate€matters.€The€statutoryÏprobate€courts€also€reduced€the€workload€of€the€overburdened€constitutional€county€judges€inÏthose€metropolitan€areas€with€large€probate€caseloads.€And€yet,€the€two„appeal€procedure€wasÏstill€required€under€the€Constitution.ÌÌà  àEven€with€the€hindrance€of€the€two„appeal€process,€it€was€not€long€before€the€four€mostÏpopulated€counties€of€the€state's€two€major€metropolitan€areas€(Dallas,€Galveston,€Harris,€andÏTarrant€Counties)€had€statutory€probate€courts.€By€1957€there€was€a€fledgling€statutory€probateÏcourt€system,€with€judges€specializing€in€probate€and€guardianship€matters.€The€counties€withÏthese€courts€recognized€the€benefits€of€a€systematic€approach€to€probate€and€guardianship,€andÏprovided€their€newly€established€courts€with€specialized€staff€to€aid€the€statutory€probate€courtsÏin€their€supervision€over€on„going€estates.€It€was€clear€to€probate€judges€and€practitioners€that€theÏtwo„step€appellate€process€still€hindered€the€development€of€an€efficient€probate€system.€A€seriesÏof€constitutional€amendments€between€1979€and€1985€not€only€reformed€the€probate€system,€butÏalso€reformed€the€judicial€system€of€our€state.€Both€the€two„step€appellate€process€and€theÏjurisdictional€grants€of€courts€were€taken€out€of€the€Constitution.€This€now€allowed€theÏLegislature€to€determine€the€jurisdiction€of€the€various€courts€in€the€state.€The€LegislatureÏresponded€to€these€constitutional€changes€by€enlarging€the€jurisdiction€of€the€statutory€probateÏcourts€and€by€creating€statutory€probate€courts€in€an€additional€four€counties:€Ô_ÔBexarÔ_Ô,€Denton,€E1ÏPaso,€and€Travis.€These€additional€statutory€probate€courts€were€either€newly€created€orÏtransformed€from€existing€statutory€county€courts€(formerly€known€as€county€courts„at„law)€toÏstatutory€probate€courts€by€amending€the€existing€Government€Code€enabling€statutes.ÌÌà  àPrior€to€1979,€probate€jurisdiction€of€the€state's€probate€courts€was€limited€to€theÏprobating€of€wills,€determining€Ô_ÔheirshipÔ_Ô,€creating€guardianships,€and€those€related€matters€inÏwhich€the€controlling€issue€was€the€collection€of€estate€assets€and€payment€of€debts€of€an€estate.ÏDistrict€courts€had€no€original€jurisdiction€over€these€matters,€but€did€have€some€limited€probateÏjurisdiction.€The€district€courts'€jurisdiction€was€limited€to€controlling€the€behavior€of€personalÏrepresentatives€in€the€management€of€estates€and€over€probate€matters€in€which€the€controllingÏissue€was€not€the€collection€of€estate€assets€and€the€payment€of€debts.€In€1979,€the€jurisdictionÏprovisions€of€the€Texas€Probate€Code€(Sections€5€and€5A)€were€amended€to€enlarge€theÏjurisdiction€of€the€statutory€probate€courts€to€give€them€concurrent€jurisdiction€with€the€districtÏcourts€in€supervising€the€behavior€of€personal€representatives€and€in€law€suits€filed€by€or€againstÏa€personal€representative€when€the€subject€matter€was€not€appertaining€to€an€estate.€At€this€point,Ïthe€statutory€probate€courts€essentially€had€the€jurisdiction€of€both€county€and€district€courts€inÏprobate€matters.€This€legislative€enlargement€of€the€statutory€probate€courts'€jurisdictionÏcontinued€to€be€questioned€despite€the€Legislature's€previous€repeated€attempts€to€clarify€that€itÏwanted€statutory€probate€courts€to€have€the€broadest€jurisdiction€possible€so€that€estates€ofÏdecedents€and€estates€of€wards€could€be€expeditiously€and€efficiently€administered.ÌÌà  àThe€Legislature's€first€attempt€at€clarification€came€after€the€Texas€Supreme€CourtÏdecision€in€òòÔ_ÔSeayÔ_Ô€v.€Hall,€óó677€S.W.2d€79€(Tex€1984),€which€ruled€that€the€1979€broadÐ 8,ˆ', Ðjurisdictional€grant€to€statutory€probate€courts€was€limited€by€common€law€concepts€limitingÏprobate€court€jurisdiction.€In€response,€the€Legislature€superseded€the€common€law€constraintsÏòòvis€a€vis€óóthe€statutory€probate€courts€by€making€it€clear€that€the€Legislature€wanted€the€statutoryÐ |Ì Ðprobate€courts€to€have€broad€jurisdiction€and€passing€legislation€giving€them€the€jurisdiction€ofÏboth€a€county€and€district€court€in€probate€matters.ÌÌà  àDespite€this€legislative€mandate,€the€decisions€of€several€lower€appellate€courts€during€theÏlate€1980s€limited€the€Legislature's€broad€jurisdictional€grant,€while€those€of€other€appellateÏcourts€recognized€the€efforts€of€the€Legislature.ÌÌà  àFinally,€in€1992,€the€Texas€Supreme€Court€in€the€case€of€òòPalmer€v.€Ô_ÔCobleÔ_Ô€Wall,òòóóóó€851Ð ¬ ü  ÐS.W.2d€178€(Tex.€1992),€seemingly€resolved€the€conflict€between€the€various€appellate€courtsÏregarding€the€broad€jurisdictional€grant€to€the€state's€statutory€probate€courts.€Even€after€theÏSupreme€Court€recognized€the€intent€of€the€Legislature€to€grant€broad€jurisdiction€to€the€statutoryÏprobate€courts,€several€appellate€courts€continued€to€fashion€arbitrary€jurisdictional€limits€on€theÏstatutory€probate€courts.ÌÌà  àAlthough€Probate€Code€ðð€ðð€5A€(decedent's€estates)€and€607€(guardianships)€give€theÏstatutory€probate€courts€jurisdiction€over€all€matters€appertaining€to€and€incident€to€an€estate,Ïsome€practitioners€challenged€the€meaning€of€the€terms€"appertaining€to€and€incident€to€anÏestate."€During€the€75th€Legislative€Session,€several€statutory€probate€judges€testified€as€to€theÏneed€for€legislative€clarification€of€the€jurisdictional€grant€given€to€the€statutory€probate€courtsÏbecause€of€the€cost€and€delay€inherent€to€jurisdictional€challenges.€In€response€to€the€continuedÏjurisdictional€challenges,€the€75th€Legislative€Session€amended€Ô_Ôððñ¿ñSñ¿ññÀñ5ñÀñAÔ_Ô€to€clarify€that€all€suits,Ïactions,€and€applications€filed€against€or€on€behalf€of€a€decedent's€estate€were€appertaining€to€andÏincident€to€the€estate.ÌÌò òà  àThe€Committee€is€of€the€opinion€that€a€mirror€provision€was€intended€and€should€beÐ òB Ðadded€to€ðð607€to€ensure€that€no€additional€court€resources€are€spent€arguing€about€theÏmeaning€of€"appertaining€to€and€incident€to"€in€the€guardianship€section€of€the€code.ÌÌó óà  àFollowing€the€most€recent€legislative€amendments,€the€Texas€Supreme€Court€issued€theirÐ Š Ú Ðunanimous€opinion€in€the€case€of€òòIn€Re€Grahamòòóóóó€in€June€of€1998,€recognizing€the€Legislature'sÐ p!À  Ðwill€to€grant€the€statutory€probate€courts€the€broadest€jurisdiction€possible€so€that€all€mattersÏaffecting€decedents'€and€wards'€estates€could€be€handled€by€these€courts.€In€its€opinion,€the€CourtÏstated€that€"this€interpretation€comports€with€the€legislative€intent€as€evidenced€by€theÏLegislature's€persistent€expansion€of€statutory€probate€court€jurisdiction€over€the€years."ÌÌà  àWhile€studying€their€charge,€the€Committee€determined€that€it€was€necessary€to€study€theÏneeds€of€the€various€counties€to€have€statutory€probate€courts€and€how€to€ensure€that€thoseÏcounties€seeking€to€participate€in€the€statutory€probate€court€system€provide€the€necessary€toolsÏto€perform€the€numerous€tasks€imposed€upon€statutory€probate€courts€by€the€Legislature.€Texas'Ïprobate€system€is€complicated€as€a€result€of€the€vast€size€of€our€state,€and€the€difference€inÏpopulation€distribution€over€the€state's€254€counties€has€resulted€in€a€probate€court€structure€toÏaccommodate€each€county's€needs.Ð 8,ˆ', Їà  àIn€counties€with€small€populations,€constitutional€county€courts€have€probate€jurisdiction,Ïwith€contested€matters€transferred€to€the€district€court€or€an€assigned€statutory€probate€court.€InÏcounties€with€somewhat€larger€populations,€statutory€county€courts€(county€courts„at„law)€mayÏshare€probate€jurisdiction€with€the€constitutional€county€court.€As€would€be€expected,€there€areÏfar€more€probate€cases€in€the€counties€with€the€highest€populations.€Accordingly,€counties€withÏthe€largest€metropolitan€areas€have€statutory€probate€courts€designed€to€specialize€only€in€probateÏmatters.€Such€specialization€and€the€sheer€number€of€cases€filed€afford€the€statutory€probateÏcourts€a€level€of€expertise€in€probate€and€guardianship€matters€unmatched€by€other€courts€in€theÏstate.ÌÌà  àThe€statutory€probate€courts€are€governed€by€Section€25.0022€et€seq.€of€the€GovernmentÏCode.€These€rules€provide€for€various€administrative€procedures€that€are€to€be€followed€by€theÏstatutory€probate€courts.€These€statutory€provisions€governing€the€administration€of€the€StatutoryÏProbate€Courts€and/or€each€court's€enabling€statute€require€the€following€staff€members€for€aÏstatutory€probate€court:€court€investigator,€court€reporter,€court€administrator,€court€auditor,€andÏcourt€coordinator.€These€positions€are€necessary€for€the€efficient€and€proper€administration€of€theÏoften€complex€probate€matters€heard€in€a€statutory€probate€court.€By€administrative€rule,€theÏstatutory€probate€court€judges€are€required€to€have€thirty€hours€annually€of€continuing€judicialÏeducation,€almost€double€the€sixteen€hours€mandated€by€state€law€for€all€judges.€SpecializationÏand€the€additional€judicial€training€give€the€statutory€probate€judges€the€specific€expertiseÏnecessary€to€adjudicate€probate€and€guardianship€cases.ÌÌà  àAlthough€the€salaries€for€a€statutory€probate€court's€additional€staff€may€seem€formidable,Ïeach€statutory€probate€court€county€receives€sufficient€filing€fees€from€cases€to€compensate€suchÏpersonnel.€Conversely,€non„statutory€probate€court€counties€generally€do€not€have€an€auditor,€anÏinvestigator,€or€a€court€coordinator.€In€these€counties,€a€court€administrator€is€often€left€toÏperform€all€of€the€above€tasks€as€well€as€assist€in€probate€matters€because€further€funding€is€notÏavailable.€Although€the€general€staffing€provision€has€a€population€threshold,€the€individualÏstatutory€probate€courts€have€additional,€specific€staffing€provisions€in€their€local€enablingÏstatutes.€Recently,€there€have€been€attempts€to€circumvent€these€staffing€requirements€by€someÏcounties€by€engrafting€statutory€probate€court€jurisdiction€onto€statutory€county€courts,€which€doÏnot€have€the€additional€staffing€requirements.€Several€statutory€county€court€judges€indicated€thatÏhaving€appropriate€staffing€was€important€to€their€performance€of€probate€court€duties€andÏwanted€the€Committee€to€devise€a€methodology€to€ensure€appropriate€staffing€for€probate€courts.ÏThe€size€of€the€probate€caseload€and€the€willingness€of€a€county's€commissioners'€court€to€fundÏrequired€staffing€are€always€pivotal€in€the€decision€to€pursue€legislation€to€create€a€statutoryÏprobate€court.ÌÌò òà  àThe€Committee€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€population€bracket€should€be€removedÐ Ô&$"& Ðfrom€the€general€staffing€provision€and€that€any€court€having€the€jurisdiction€of€a€statutoryÏprobate€court€should€be€staffed€with€the€appropriate€personnel€required€by€law.ÌÌà  àFurthermore,€the€Committee€is€of€the€opinion€that€counties€should€be€allowed€toÏcreate€multi„county€statutory€probate€courts.€[The€Legislature€already€allows€the€creationÏof€multi„county€statutory€county€courts.€Gov.€Code€ðð25.2601.]ó óÐ 8,ˆ', Їà  àThe€Legislature€has€further€recognized€the€statutory€probate€courts'€specialization€byÏinstituting€an€ability€to€transfer€certain€cases€to€a€statutory€probate€court.€Since€statutory€probateÏcourts€often€have€cases€which€are€both€complicated€and€require€lengthy€supervision,€it€isÏjudicially€economical€for€a€statutory€probate€court€to€transfer€into€its€court€a€case€related€to€anÏalready€pending€matter.€Accordingly,€ðððð5B€and€608€allow€the€court€to€transfer€"from€a€district,Ïcounty€or€statutory€court€a€cause€of€action€appertaining€to€or€incident€to€an€estate€[decedent€orÏguardianship]€pending€in€the€statutory€probate€court."€These€transfer€provisions€allow€theÏstatutory€probate€courts€to€operate€in€a€manner€similar€to€a€bankruptcy€court€in€the€federal€courtÏsystem.€The€various€claims€against€an€estate€may,€at€the€discretion€of€the€statutory€probate€judge,Ïbe€consolidated€with€all€other€claims€against€the€estate€when€the€judge€determines€that€theÏcircumstances€existing€in€a€particular€case€warrant€monitoring€by€a€single€court.€This€allowsÏorderly€determination€of€claims€according€to€the€statutory€scheme€while€protecting€the€humanÏneeds€of€the€ward€over€whom€the€guardianship€exists.ÌÌà  àThe€statutory€county€court€judges€testified€that€the€statutory€probate€court€transferÏprovision€was€unnecessary€for€their€purposes,€as€statutory€county€courts€and€district€courts€couldÏavail€themselves€of€the€transfer€provisions€set€forth€in€Chapter€74€of€the€Government€Code€(theÏcourt€administration€act€for€the€state's€statutory€county€courts€and€district€courts).€None€of€theÏstatutory€county€court€judges€present€at€the€Committee€hearing€had€utilized€the€two€Probate€CodeÏtransfer€provisions.ÌÌò òà  àThe€Committee€is€of€the€opinion€that€while€the€Probate€Code€transfer€authority€isÐ ŽÞ Ðrarely€used,€even€by€statutory€probate€courts,€it€remains€a€necessary€tool€for€the€efficientÏadministration€of€both€decedent's€and€guardianship€estates.€Expanding€this€authority€isÏproblematic,€as€an€expansion€would€have€to€include€both€statutory€county€judges€and€theÏnon„lawyer€probate€judges€often€presiding€in€counties€with€smaller€populations.€The€smallÏprobate€caseloads€in€these€counties€do€not€warrant€such€an€expansion.ÌÌó óà  àAt€the€Corpus€Christi€hearing,€Judge€James€Ô_ÔKlagerÔ_Ô,€from€Ô_ÔNuecesÔ_Ô€County,€advocatedÐ Ø( Ðhaving€the€transfer€provision€apply€to€all€courts€and€advocated€legislative€action€to€create€aÏuniform€court€system€for€the€state's€trial€courts.€The€result€would€be€a€uniform€courts€system€inÏTexas€with€all€courts€having€every€level€of€jurisdiction€„„€in€other€words,€the€jurisdiction€of€aÏdistrict€court.€The€judge€alleged€that€the€transfer€provision€as€written€violates€equal€protectionÏunder€the€Constitution€because€the€provision€does€not€apply€to€all€courts€with€probateÏjurisdiction.€Such€an€argument€must€be€reviewed€under€the€applicable€constitutional€standard.ÏSince€there€is€obviously€no€suspect€class€(e.g.,€race,€nationality,€gender)€involved€in€theÏapplication€of€the€statute,€the€statute€would€not€be€subject€to€a€strict€scrutiny€standard.€Rather,€theÏstatute€would€require€only€a€rational€basis€for€the€differing€treatment€to€be€constitutionally€valid.ÏThe€rational€basis€implied€by€the€Legislature€to€justify€the€limited€transfer€authority€is€thatÏstatutory€probate€courts€would€benefit€the€most€from€the€transfer€power€because€of€the€caseloadÏvolume,€concentrations€of€wealth,€and€general€litigiousness€found€in€the€major€metropolitanÏareas.€Further,€only€the€statutory€probate€courts€have€sufficient€expertise€and€staffing€toÏconsistently€handle€the€transferred€cases.€Other€than€the€equal€protection€argument,€no€oneÏoffered€a€valid€reason€to€extend€transfer€authority€to€non„statutory€probate€courts.€In€fact,Ïalthough€a€transfer€provision€is€written€into€the€Ô_ÔNuecesÔ_Ô€County€courts€at€law's€enabling€statute,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðthe€Ô_ÔNuecesÔ_Ô€County€court€at€law€judges€present€at€the€Corpus€Christi€meeting€testified€that€theyÏhad€never€transferred€a€case€into€their€court€by€any€manner€other€than€that€provided€for€under€byÏGovernment€Code€Chapter€74.ÌÌò òà  àAs€the€policy€decision€has€already€been€made€by€the€Legislature€to€grant€transferÐ H˜ Ðjurisdiction€only€to€statutory€probate€courts,€the€Committee€is€of€the€opinion€that€similarÏtransfer€authority€should€òòòònotóó€óóbe€extended€to€all€courts€with€probate€jurisdiction.Ð  d ÐÌó óà  àIt€was€noted€that€the€statutory€probate€courts€do€not€have€any€transfer€provisionÐ à 0 Ðequivalent€to€the€Government€Code€Chapter€74€transfer€provision.€The€presiding€statutoryÏprobate€court€judge€indicated€that€it€would€be€appropriate€for€a€section€to€be€added€to€theÏstatutory€probate€court€administrative€provisions€to€allow€a€statutory€probate€court€the€ability€toÏtransfer€a€case€to€a€court€of€proper€jurisdiction€when€appropriate.ÌÌà  àò òThe€Committee€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€statutory€probate€courts€should€have€theÐ D”  Ðability€to€transfer€lawsuits,€as€an€alternative€to€dismissal,€upon€the€loss€of€subject„matterÏjurisdiction€due€to€settlement€by,€or€dismissal€of,€the€estate€as€a€party€to€the€lawsuit.ÌÌà  àó óStatistics€kept€by€the€Office€of€Court€Administration€reflect€that€the€20€most€populatedÐ Ü, Ðcounties€have€probate,€guardianship€and€mental€health€caseloads€sufficient€to€support€at€least€oneÏstatutory€probate€court€in€each€county.€Nine€of€the€fifteen€most€populous€counties€currently€haveÏstatutory€probate€courts.€The€four€largest€counties,€Harris,€Dallas,€Ô_ÔBexarÔ_Ô,€and€Tarrant,€haveÏmultiple€statutory€probate€courts.€The€fifth€and€sixth€largest€counties,€Travis€and€E1€Paso,€haveÏsingle€statutory€probate€courts.€Travis€County€is€examining€the€need€for€an€additional€statutoryÏprobate€court.€The€other€two€statutory€probate€court€counties,€Denton€and€Galveston,€offer€anÏinteresting€contrast.ÌÌà  àGalveston€County€was€one€of€the€original€statutory€probate€court€counties,€and€DentonÏCounty€has€the€state's€newest€statutory€probate€courts.€Both€Galveston€County€and€DentonÏCounty€are€contiguous€to€the€two€largest€metropolitan€counties€in€the€state€and€serve€an€ever„¼increasing€population€and€probate€caseload.€In€each€of€the€statutory€probate€court€counties,€thereÏwas€a€willingness€of€the€respective€counties'€commissioners'€courts€to€participate€in€the€statutoryÏprobate€court€system.€In€each€of€these€counties,€the€probate,€guardianship,€and€mental€healthÏjurisdiction€was€placed€exclusively€in€the€statutory€probate€court.€By€limiting€the€number€ofÏcourts€having€probate€jurisdiction,€the€state€and€the€counties€effectively€limited€the€probate€courtÏstaffing€requirements'€effects€on€a€county's€budget€by€limiting€the€required€expanded€staff€to€aÏsingle€probate€court.ÌÌà  àObviously,€requiring€a€full€statutory€probate€court€staff€for€each€of€several€statutoryÏcounty€courts€with€probate€jurisdiction€is€not€economically€feasible,€unless€the€county€is€largeÏenough€to€require€multiple€statutory€probate€courts.€Accordingly,€the€most€practical€fundingÏchoice€for€a€county's€commissioners'€court€is€to€staff€a€single€probate€court€with€specializedÏpersonnel,€while€allowing€the€county's€other€statutory€county€courts€to€retain€their€standardÏpersonnel€necessary€for€their€non„probate€civil€or€criminal€jurisdictionñ¾ñ.ñ¾ñÌÐ 8,ˆ', Ðò òà  àThe€Committee€is€of€the€opinion€that€new€statutory€probate€courts€should€be€createdÐ ° Ðonly€upon€a€commissioners'€court's€request€and€an€understanding€that€the€new€courtÏshould€be€governed€by€the€Government€Code's€statutory€probate€court€staffing€and€filingÏrequirements.ÌÌó óà  àSeveral€statutory€probate€courts€have€some€additional€jurisdiction€beyond€their€statutoryÐ . ~ Ðprobate€court€jurisdiction.€This€additional€jurisdiction€is€limited€and€is€no€greater€than€the€generalÏcivil€jurisdiction€of€a€statutory€county€court,€nor€less€than€merely€having€eminent€domainÏjurisdiction.€This€added€jurisdiction€is€a€result€of€the€transitional€needs€of€a€county€going€fromÏthe€traditional€probate€court€system€to€the€more€formalized€statutory€probate€court€system.ÌÌò òà  àThe€Committee€recognizes€this€transitional€need€and€is€of€the€opinion€that,€to€theÐ ’â  Ðextent€necessary,€additional€jurisdiction€in€any€newly€created€statutory€probate€court€beÏlimited€in€scope€and€transitional€in€nature.ÌÌó óà  àThe€Committee€recognizes€that€the€current€probate€system€is€preferable€to€the€systemÐ *z  Ðwhich€existed€in€the€past.€The€development€of€the€statutory€probate€court€system€has€had€aÏsalutary€effect€upon€probate€law€in€Texas.ÌÌà  àIn€recent€years€some€county€courts„at„law€have€attempted€to€alter€the€statutory€probateÏcourt€system€by€giving€themselves€statutory€probate€court€jurisdiction€without€actuallyÏconverting€their€courts€into€statutory€probate€courts.€Such€altered€jurisdiction,€usually€obtainedÏby€conveniently€renaming€the€court€or€by€amending€local€enabling€provisions,€denigrates€theÏdecades€of€effort€spent€by€the€Legislature€in€developing€our€statutory€probate€court€system.ÌÌà  àThe€county€courts„at„law€that€have€statutory€probate€court€jurisdiction€have€the€subjectÏmatter€jurisdiction€and€responsibility€of€a€statutory€probate€court,€but€lack€the€necessaryÏspecialized€staff€and€filing€requirements€and€without€having€to€comply€with€statutory€probateÏcourt€administrative€procedures.€Such€circumvention€is€a€disservice€to€these€counties'Ïconstituents,€and€flies€in€the€face€of€the€reasoning€behind€the€creation€of€statutory€probate€courts.ÌÌà  àIn€contrast€to€this€approach,€counties€like€Denton€and€E1€Paso€have€come€to€theÏLegislature€to€have€statutory€probate€courts€created€with€appropriate€staffing€and€filingÏrequirements.€This€is€the€way€the€current€statutory€probate€court€system€should€be€developed.ÌÌò òà  àThe€Committee€is€of€the€opinion€that€any€statutory€provision€granting€statutoryÐ "$r# Ðprobate€court€jurisdiction€and€authority€to€courts€other€than€statutory€probate€courtsÏshould€be€repealed.ÌÌó óà  àIn€a€judicial€system€that€relies€on€state€and€local€cooperation,€it€is€incumbent€that€theÐ º' #' Ðneeds€of€a€county's€citizens€in€having€an€efficient€probate€system€are€communicated€to€theÏLegislature€by€the€local€commissioners'€court.€Statutory€probate€courts€should€not€be€forced€uponÏcounties€unwilling€to€fund€and€staff€such€courts€adequately.€At€the€same€time,€counties€wantingÏto€have€the€benefit€of€the€statutory€probate€court€system€should€recognize€the€requisites€of€such€aÏsystem.€The€Legislature€is€always€ready€to€aid€any€county€wishing€to€participate€in€the€statutoryÐ 8,ˆ', Ðprobate€court€system€by€enacting€appropriate€enabling€legislation.ÌÌà  àThe€Committee€is€of€the€opinion€that€new€statutory€probate€courts€should€be€created€inÏTexas'€fifteen€(15)€most€populated€counties€only€upon€a€commissioners'€court's€request€and€withÏan€understanding€that€the€new€court€shall€be€governed€by€the€Government€Code's€statutoryÏprobate€court€filing€and€staffing€requirements.ñ¸ñÐ  . ~ Ðñ¸ññ¹ñÌÌñ¹ñÓ  Óò òRECOMMENDATIONS:ó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ  ÓI.à0  àThe€Committee€recommends€the€repeal€of€any€statutory€provision€granting€statutoryÐ |Ì Ðprobate€court€jurisdiction€and€authority€to€courts€other€than€statutory€probate€courts.Ð (#(# ÐÌñ´ñÓ  Óñ´ñII.à0  àThe€Committee€recommends€that€the€population€bracket€in€Government€Code€ðð25.0024Ð . ~ Ðbe€removed€from€the€general€staffing€provision€and€that€any€court€having€the€jurisdictionÏof€a€statutory€probate€court€should€be€staffed€with€the€appropriate€personnel€required€byÏÔ_Ôñ¼ñ!ñ¼ññ½ñlñ½ñaw.Ô_ÔÐ (#(# ÐÌñ´ñÓ  Óñ´ñIII.à0  àThe€Committee€recommends€that€counties€should€be€allowed€to€create€multi„countyÐ ¬ ü  Ðstatutory€probate€courts.Ð (#(# ÐÌIV.à0  àThe€Committee€recommends€the€creation€of€new€statutory€probate€courts€in€Texas'Ð ^®  Ðtwenty€(20)€most€populated€counties€only€upon€a€commissioners'€court's€request€and€anÏunderstanding€that€the€new€court€should€be€governed€by€the€Government€Code's€statutoryÏprobate€court€filing€and€staffing€requirements.Ð (#(# ÐÌV.à0  àThe€Committee€recommends€that€additional€jurisdiction€in€any€newly€created€statutoryÐ Ü, Ðprobate€court€be€limited€in€scope€and€transitional€in€nature.Ð (#(# ÐÌVI.à0  àThe€Committee€recommends€that€Government€Code€ðð25.0022€be€amended€to€give€theÐ ŽÞ Ðstatutory€probate€courts€the€ability€to€transfer€lawsuits,€as€an€alternative€to€dismissal,Ïupon€the€loss€of€subject„matter€jurisdiction€due€to€settlement€by,€or€dismissal€oñºñt;ñºññ»ñf,ñ»ñ€theÏestate€as€a€party€to€the€lawsuit.Ð (#(# ÐÌVII.à0  àThe€Committee€recommends€that€a€mirror€provision€of€ðð5A€be€added€to€ðð607€to€includeÐ  \ Ðreferences€to€"matters€appertaining€to€and€incident€to€an€estate"€in€the€guardianshipÏsection€of€the€probate€code.Ð (#(# ÐÌÓ  Ó