Ruth Woollett and Jane Vorwerk v. Bill Matyastik, Temporary Guardian of the Estate and Person of Rose Matyastik

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ruth Woollett and Jane Vorwerk v. Bill Matyastik, Temporary Guardian of the Estate and Person of Rose Matyastik

DecidedDecember 16, 1999

Docket03-99-00353-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Ruth Woollett and Jane Vorwerk v. Bill Matyastik, Temporary Guardian of the Estate and Person of Rose Matyastik (Ruth Woollett and Jane Vorwerk v. Bill Matyastik, Temporary Guardian of the Estate and Person of Rose Matyastik) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ruth Woollett and Jane Vorwerk v. Bill Matyastik, Temporary Guardian of the Estate and Person of Rose Matyastik, (Tex. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-99-00353-CV

Ruth Woollett and Jane Vorwerk, Appellants

v.

Bill Matyastik, Temporary Guardian of the Estate and Person

of Rose Matyastik, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 26,003, HONORABLE CHARLES E. LANCE, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

Bill Matyastik was appointed the temporary guardian of the person and estate of his mother, Rose Matyastik. Following a jury trial, the court signed an order appointing Bill the permanent guardian of the person and estate of Ms. Matyastik. Among other matters, the order required Bill to post a $275,204.42 bond. In this appeal, Ruth Woollett and Jane Vorwerk, also children of Ms. Matyastik, challenge the trial court's appointment of Bill as guardian.

The appointment of a guardian does not take effect until the guardian qualifies as required by law. See Williams v. Foster, 229 S.W. 896, 898 (Tex. Civ. App.--Amarillo 1921, no writ). A guardian is deemed duly qualified if the guardian has taken and filed the oath required by Texas Probate Code section 700, made the required bond, filed it with clerk and had the court approve the bond. Tex. Prob. Code Ann. § 699 (West Supp. 1999). A guardian has twenty days from the date of the order granting letters of guardianship to qualify. Id. § 701.

The trial court signed the order appointing Bill permanent guardian on May 20, 1999. On June 8, 1999, Ms. Matyastik died. According to the Milam County district clerk's office, Bill did not file a bond. Therefore, Bill did not qualify as Ms. Matyastik's guardian. Because Ms. Matyastik died before Bill qualified as guardian, an appeal alleging error in his appointment as guardian is moot. See Mason v. Barnard, 381 S.W.2d 85, 86 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio 1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellants' motion to compel the district clerk to file the record and return the case to county court is also dismissed as moot.

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed as Moot

Filed: December 16, 1999

Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-99-00353-CV

Ruth Woollett and Jane Vorwerk, Appellants

v.

Bill Matyastik, Temporary Guardian of the Estate and Person

of Rose Matyastik, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 26,003, HONORABLE CHARLES E. LANCE, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

Bill Matyastik was appointed the temporary guardian of the person and estate of his mother, Rose Matyastik. Following a jury trial, the court signed an order appointing Bill the permanent guardian of the person and estate of Ms. Matyastik. Among other matters, the order required Bill to post a $275,204.42 bond. In this appeal, Ruth Woollett and Jane Vorwerk, also children of Ms. Matyastik, challenge the trial court's appointment of Bill as guardian.

The appointment of a guardian does not take effect until the guardian qualifies as required by law. See Williams v. Foster, 229 S.W. 896, 898 (Tex. Civ. App.--Amarillo 1921, no writ). A guardian is deemed duly qualified if the guardian has taken and filed the oath required by Texas Probate Code section 700, made the required bond, filed it with clerk and had the court approve the bond. Tex. Prob. Code Ann. § 699 (West Supp. 1999). A guardian has twenty days from the date of the order granting letters of guardianship to qualify. Id. § 701.

The trial court signed the order appointing Bill permanent guardian on May 20, 1999. On June 8, 1999, Ms. Matyastik died. According to the Milam County district clerk's office, Bill did not file a bond. Therefore, Bill did not qualify as Ms. Matyastik's guardian. Because Ms. Matyastik died before Bill qualified as guardian, an appeal alleging error in his appointment as guardian is moot. See Mason v. Barnard, 381 S.W.2d 85, 86 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio 1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellants' motion to compel the district clerk to file the record and return the case to county court is also dismissed as moot.

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed as Moot

Filed: December 16, 1999

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ruth Woollett and Jane Vorwerk v. Bill Matyastik, Temporary Guardian of the Estate and Person of Rose Matyastik, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruth-woollett-and-jane-vorwerk-v-bill-matyastik-temporary-guardian-of-the-texapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack