In Suday v. Suday, a trial court denied an executrix’s challenge to its jurisdiction with regard to her mother’s estate. No. 04-23-00836-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 6953 (Tex. App.—San Antonio September 25, 2024, pet. filed). The executrix filed an appeal, and the court of appeals dismissed the appeal. The court first looked at the executrix’s ability to appeal on behalf of an estate. The court stated:

Only licensed attorneys may represent a decedent’s estate at trial or on appeal. Kankonde v. Mankan, No. 08-20-00052-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 7040, 2020 WL 5105806, at *2 (Tex. App.—El Paso Aug. 31, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). An appellate brief filed on behalf of a decedent’s estate by a pro se litigant who is not authorized to practice law in the State of Texas has no legal effect. Id. If no attorney intervenes to submit a brief on behalf of the decedent’s estate, the pro se appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution. Id.; see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (involuntary dismissal for want of prosecution).

Id. The court of appeals noted that it warned the executrix that she needed to retain counsel and also gave multiple extensions of time to do so. When the executrix failed to comply, the court of appeals dismissed her appeal for want of prosecution.

The court also looked at whether the executrix in her individual capacity had the right to challenge the trial court’s order. The court held that she had no standing to collaterally attack the divorce decree because she could not show that the trial court’s order dividing her parent’s Texas property was void.