In the Matter of the Estate of Mary Nell Campbell v. Sammye L. Campbell ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-22-00179-CV
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARY NELL CAMPBELL
V.
SAMMYE L. CAMPBELL, ET AL.
On Appeal from the 108th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 110871, Honorable Douglas Woodburn, Presiding
May 11, 2023
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, Patria Osuoha, proceeding pro se, challenges the trial court’s order
dismissing her suit against Appellees, Sammye L. Campbell, Glenn C. Campbell, Thomas
C. Campbell, Bruce W. Campbell, Jermall L. Campbell, Sr./Others, regarding the estate
of her mother, Mary Nell Campbell. Osuoha presents six issues asserting the following:
1. Did the trial court err when it granted judgment as a matter of law in favor
of Defendants because of lack of authority or jurisdiction?
2. Did the trial court err when it granted a dismissal in favor of the
Defendant[s] violate the rights of the plaintiff by denying a fair trial?
3. Should this have been an acquittal for the plaintiff being that two
defendants did not show up for trial court?
4. Why would Honorable Judge Douglas Woodburn make a rash decision
just based on administration?
5. Why did I not receive effective assistance of counsel?
6. Did Judge Woodburn have time for a preliminary hearing before this
case was called to trial?
For the reasons expressed herein, we affirm the Order of Dismissal.
BACKGROUND
Osuoha asserts she is the only daughter of the decedent, Mary Nell Campbell. By
her original petition and several amended petitions filed in the 108th District Court of
Potter County, Texas, she contends Appellees are also “legal heirs.” She asserts that an
affidavit of heirship and gift deeds were filed but the decedent’s estate has not been
apportioned.
At a brief hearing at which Osuoha and some, but not all, of Appellees appeared,
the trial court simply recited “the case really is one for the establishment of an
administration - - a request for an administration. That file has to be filed in the Probate
Court and so I don’t have any authority over it.” An order dismissing the suit for lack of
jurisdiction was signed and Osuoha filed a pro se notice of appeal. She filed an original
and later an amended brief after the original one did not comply with briefing rules.
Appellees did not favor us with a brief.
2
APPLICABLE LAW
All probate proceedings must be filed and heard in a court exercising original
probate jurisdiction. TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 32.001. 1 Under section 25.0003 of the Texas
Government Code, any statutory county court has original probate jurisdiction unless
otherwise provided.
Potter County has two statutory county courts. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 25.1901.
Except for a county with a statutory probate court, a statutory county court has “concurrent
with the county court, the probate jurisdiction provided by general law for county courts.”
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 25.0003(d).
ANALYSIS
Osuoha’s suit is a “probate proceeding” by which she sought adjudication of assets
and liabilities through her mother’s estate. She also asked to be appointed independent
administrator of the estate. As such, jurisdiction was not proper in the 108th District Court
of Potter County. The trial court correctly dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. 2
1A “probate proceeding” includes a petition regarding an estate administration. TEX. EST. CODE
ANN. § 31.001(4).
2 In the Arguments section of her amended brief, Osuoha simply recites, “None present.” Without
any argument, her issues are subject to waiver. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) (requiring “a clear and concise
argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”). Pro se
litigants are not exempt from rules of procedure. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–
85 (Tex. 1978). See also Li v. Pemberton Park Community Ass’n, 631 S.W.3d 701, 705 (Tex. 2021).
3
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s Order of Dismissal is affirmed.
Alex L. Yarbrough
Justice
4