When a loved one passes away with outstanding debts, someone has to sort through the claims against the estate. Creditors have to follow specific steps to get paid, and the deadlines are strict. Miss a filing window by even one day, and a claim that might otherwise be completely valid can be permanently barred.
What happens when a creditor holding secured promissory notes against estate property files a claim, lets the deadline slip, and then tries to restart the clock by amending the claim? Can a creditor who voluntarily submits to probate court jurisdiction later argue that the court had no authority over the claim?
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals addressed exactly these questions in In the Estate of Hernandez, Nos. 13-24-00506-CV & 13-25-00413-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg, Oct. 16, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). The case involved an attorney-turned-creditor who sold three properties to the decedent, financed the purchases, and then struggled to collect after the buyer died — largely because of missed deadlines and procedural missteps.
The Property Sales, the Death, and the Unpaid Notes
Jose F. Hernandez passed away on April 5, 2022. One of his heirs, Gloria Hernandez, filed an application to probate his will on May 12, 2022. Her attorney at the time was O.F. Jones III. The case was filed in the County Court at Law No. 2 of Victoria County, Texas.
Jones had a dual role in this estate — and that is where the complications started. He was not just Gloria’s lawyer. He was also a creditor of the estate. Hernandez had purchased three separate properties in Victoria from Jones, financing each purchase in part by borrowing money from Jones. The transactions were secured by vendor’s liens on the properties and documented through promissory notes and deeds of trust. Hernandez died before paying off any of the three notes.
After a motion to disqualify was filed, Jones withdrew as Gloria’s counsel. Cole Eckhoff was appointed temporary administrator of the estate on March 6, 2023.
On May 17, 2023, Jones filed a secured claim against the estate seeking to recover the principal balance, interest, late fees, attorney’s fees, and court costs on all three promissory notes. Under Texas Estates Code § 355.051, Eckhoff had thirty days to accept or reject the claim. He did not respond, so the claim was automatically rejected by operation of law on June 16, 2023. See Tex. Est. Code § 355.052.
That rejection triggered a critical deadline. Under Section 355.064(a), Jones had exactly ninety days to file suit “on the claim in the court of original probate jurisdiction in which the estate is pending.” Jones and Eckhoff did enter a Rule 11 agreement extending the deadline to November 1, 2023, because the parties were trying to sell the properties. But Jones never filed suit by that extended deadline either.
Meanwhile, the county court authorized the sale of all three properties in September 2023. Disputes arose over Jones’s payoff amounts — specifically, the attorney’s fees he was claiming. At a January 2024 hearing, the parties discovered that Jones had never actually filed the application for foreclosure he claimed to have filed. Jones then withdrew and nonsuited his entire secured claim, saying he would “start over.”
The court subsequently approved the sales and authorized payments to Jones from the estate. Jones accepted $30,303.40 and $39,434.40, and his liens were released. But Jones was not satisfied. He filed a second amended secured claim, asserting the payments did not cover all the interest and late charges due. He then filed a third amended claim adding more exhibits.
At an August 22, 2024 hearing on the third amended claim, Jones argued he was still owed unpaid late fees and interest, attorney’s fees for obtaining an administrator, and attorney’s fees for collecting the debt. The estate countered that Jones’s claims were untimely and that his actions had actually cost the estate money through unnecessary hearings. The county court agreed with the estate and signed an order disallowing the remainder of Jones’s claim, stating he was “entitled to no further relief from the estate.” The court’s findings of fact included that Jones’s claim was barred by his failure to commence suit within ninety days after rejection.
Jones — who is an attorney representing himself — then challenged the ruling through both a petition for writ of mandamus and a direct appeal.
How Secured Claims Work in Texas Probate and Why the 90-Day Deadline Matters
The Texas Estates Code lays out a specific process for creditor claims against estates. Under Section 355.001, a creditor presents an authenticated claim to the estate’s personal representative. The representative then has thirty days to allow or reject the claim. Section 355.051. If the representative does nothing, the claim is automatically rejected on the thirtieth day. Section 355.052.
Once a claim is rejected — whether actively or by the representative’s silence — the creditor has exactly ninety days to file suit “on the claim in the court of original probate jurisdiction in which the estate is pending.” Section 355.064(a). This is not a flexible guideline. It is a hard deadline, and missing it permanently bars the claim. As the court in In re Estate of Larson, 541 S.W.3d 368, 375-76 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.), held, failure to timely file suit requires dismissal of the entire claim.
Importantly, filing suit means filing a new lawsuit — not just amending an existing claim within the probate proceeding. Section 32.001(d) of the Estates Code says that estate administration “from the filing of the application for probate and administration… until the decree of final distribution and the discharge of the last personal representative, shall be considered as one proceeding for purposes of jurisdiction.” Because everything within the estate administration is treated as one proceeding, filing an amended claim does not count as commencing a new suit.
This distinction matters enormously. If amending a claim could restart the ninety-day clock, any creditor could avoid the deadline indefinitely by filing successive amendments. The statute’s purpose — giving estates finality so they can be closed within a reasonable timeframe — would be gutted.
How the Court Analyzed Jones’s Jurisdictional Challenge and the Statute of Limitations
Jones made two separate challenges to the trial court’s order: a mandamus petition arguing the county court lacked jurisdiction, and a direct appeal arguing the court abused its discretion in dismissing his claim.
On the mandamus side, Jones argued that because his claims involved vendor’s liens (not simple “money” claims), the probate court had no jurisdiction and he was entitled to pursue foreclosure outside the probate process. He pointed to Walton v. First National Bank of Trenton, 956 S.W.2d 647, 651 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, pet. denied), which held that a holder of a vendor’s lien has the option to avoid probate court. But the court of appeals explained that having the option to go elsewhere is not the same thing as being required to. Walton did not hold that district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over vendor’s liens on estate property.
The court found that under the Estates Code, the county court had at least concurrent jurisdiction over Jones’s secured claim through its pendent and ancillary jurisdiction power. Section 32.001(b) allows a probate court to “exercise pendent and ancillary jurisdiction as necessary to promote judicial efficiency and economy.” The prior probate code explicitly listed enforcement of liens on estate land as incident to estate administration. In re Puig, 351 S.W.3d 301, 304 (Tex. 2011). And Texas courts have continued to apply similar reasoning under the Estates Code’s framework. In re Estate of Rushing, 644 S.W.3d 383, 389 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2022, pet. denied); Dowell v. Quiroz, 462 S.W.3d 578, 582-84 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.).
The court also applied the principle from Markward v. Murrah, 136 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1940, writ granted), aff’d 156 S.W.2d 971 (Tex. 1941): a party who voluntarily submits to a court’s jurisdiction cannot later challenge it. Jones chose to file in probate court. He participated in hearings, accepted payments through court-approved orders, and only challenged jurisdiction after the court ruled against him. As King v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 472 S.W.3d 848, 853 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.), noted, “a party may be estopped from asserting dominant jurisdiction by its inequitable conduct.”
Because Jones failed to show the district court had exclusive jurisdiction — the only basis for voiding a probate court’s order — the mandamus petition was denied.
On the direct appeal, the analysis was straightforward. Jones’s claim was rejected on June 16, 2023. Even with the Rule 11 extension to November 1, 2023, he never filed suit. His later amended claims were part of the same probate proceeding and did not constitute a new “suit on the claim.” The court also rejected Jones’s argument, based on Lusk v. Lusk, 625 S.W.2d 775 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 1981, no writ), that including a foreclosure request in his first amended claim satisfied the suit requirement. Lusk addressed a separate district court action for trespass to try title — not an amended claim within a probate proceeding. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.
The Takeaway
This case is a cautionary tale for estate creditors — especially secured creditors who might assume their liens give them more flexibility than the Estates Code allows. When a claim against a Texas estate is rejected, the creditor has ninety days to file suit. Period. Amending an existing claim does not restart that clock, and nonsuiting a claim does not give the creditor a fresh start. The entire probate proceeding is treated as one proceeding under Section 32.001(d), so everything filed within it is part of the same case.
Creditors holding vendor’s liens or other secured interests can choose to pursue foreclosure outside of probate court. But if they voluntarily file a claim in probate court first, they cannot later argue that the court lacked jurisdiction — at least not unless a district court has exclusive jurisdiction, which is rare in this context. The choice of forum matters, and it locks in early.
For anyone dealing with estate creditor claims, the practical lesson is simple: know your deadlines, file suit when required, and do not assume that procedural workarounds will buy you more time.
Do you need help with a probate matter in El Paso or the surrounding area? We are El Paso probate attorneys. We help clients work through the probate process. Call today for a free confidential consultation, (915) 292-4400.
Our El Paso Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with secured claims against estates and creditor deadline issues in probate. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process. We have years of combined experience that we can use to support and guide you with probate and estate matters. Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation.
Disclaimer
The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information presented may not apply to your situation and should not be acted upon without consulting a qualified probate attorney. We encourage you to seek the advice of a competent attorney with any legal questions you may have.
