In Est. of Smith, the beneficiaries of an estate filed claims that the decedent was mentally incompetent when she deeded her residence to her grandson and granddaughter-in-law. No. 02-24-00175-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 8272 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth November 27, 2024, no pet.). The executor of the estate never raised this claim while the grandson and granddaughter-in-law were married, and in fact accepted payments for the property. Later, the estate beneficiaries filed claims, and the executor filed a motion to resign, which was granted. The grandson and his soon to be ex-wife file a plea to the jurisdiction, alleging that the beneficiaries did not have standing to assert their claim. The trial court granted same and there was an appeal.

The court of appeals discussed standing to assert claims on behalf of an estate:

Generally, only a probate estate’s personal representative—the executor or the administrator—has standing to sue to recover property belonging to the estate. But this general rule has a number of exceptions, which—if applicable—allow heirs to file suit on the estate’s behalf. Here, the parties have identified three potentially applicable exceptions. First, heirs may bring suit if they plead and prove that there is no estate administration pending and none is necessary. Second, heirs may bring suit on the estate’s behalf when the personal representative is unable or unwilling to do so or when the personal representative has a conflict of interest. Third, heirs may bring suit when the estate’s administration is closed.

Id. The court then held that none of these exceptions applied in this case:

Here, Appellants pleaded that they had standing under the first and third exceptions. To establish standing based on either of these exceptions, Appellants must show that the administration of Smith’s estate was no longer pending at the time that they filed suit. But they cannot do so.  Because an independent executor is not required to formally close an independent administration, such administrations are often not formally closed. “In the absence of a formal closing, an independent administration may be considered closed when the facts and circumstances show that all debts and claims against the estate have been paid, the estate’s net assets have been distributed, and there is no need for further administration.” Thus, whether an estate was informally closed turns on whether “the debts of the estate [were] paid and the property distributed such that there was no need for further administration.”

The record reflects that the administration had not been informally closed—and thus remained pending—at the time Appellants filed their lawsuit. Although Avantyr’s inventory reflected that “[n]o claims [we]re due and owing to the [e]state,” it did not state that the estate’s debts had been paid or that the assets had been distributed. Thus, the inventory did not—in and of itself—provide the information necessary to show that the administration had been informally closed. Further, before Appellants filed their lawsuit, Avantyr filed a motion to appoint an attorney ad litem to represent any unknown heirs, and the probate court signed an order appointing an attorney ad litem. Not only did such an appointment suggest that further estate distributions may have been necessary, but it also likely created a future claim against the estate for professional fees. Indeed, as noted, in Avantyr’s application for determination of heirship that he filed contemporaneously with his motion for the appointment of an ad litem attorney, he expressly acknowledged that “an administ[rat]ion of the estate remain[ed] necessary” because “the assets of the [e]state require[d] distribution.” Thus, we conclude that the independent administration was not informally closed at the time that Appellants filed their lawsuit and that, therefore, they lack standing.

Id. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the underlying case.