Jarvis v. Feild, 327 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2010, no pet.).
Litigant objected to the court’s venue to probate a will. Because
Litigant did not object until Litigant appealed the admission of the
will to probate, the court held that she waived her venue argument.
Moral: Objections to venue should be timely filed or else they will be
deemed waived.
Litigant appealed asserting that an approved inventory was incomplete
and misstated the value of the listed property. However, her appeal did
not specifically indicate she was appealing the inventory order but
rather objected to the approval of the account for final settlement
which the court issued many months later. Litigant argued that the two
orders were linked so the appeal of the account for final settlement
automatically appealed the approval of the inventory. Although there was
no support for Litigant’s argument, the court decided to review the
inventory approval because appellate issues should be liberally
construed so the right to appeal is not lost. After examining the
evidence, the court determined that the trial court did not err in
approving the inventory.
Moral: A person dissatisfied with the court’s approval of an inventory
should take action in a timely manner and clearly indicate the court
order to which the person is objecting.