Background
David Stewart (Father) filed an application to be appointed permanent guardian of his adult son Nathan Daniel Stewart, requesting that citation be served on both Nathan and Barbra Klecka (Mother). Mother filed a pro se answer and later objected through counsel, asserting Nathan was not incapacitated and would object to Father’s appointment. An attorney ad litem was appointed for Nathan on January 19, 2024.
The officer’s return showed that “David Stewart” (the Father) was personally served with citation, not Nathan. A final hearing began June 3, 2024, and reconvened July 12, 2024. Before the trial court signed its order, Mother filed her own guardianship application on July 1, 2024, and Nathan was personally served with that citation on July 10, 2024. The trial court found Nathan incompetent and appointed Father as permanent guardian on August 14, 2024. Mother appealed, challenging whether the trial court acquired personal jurisdiction over Nathan regarding Father’s application.
The Court’s Holding
To enter a valid judgment, a court must have both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, which requires valid service of process. Texas Estates Code § 1051.103(a)(1) mandates that a sheriff personally serve citation on a proposed ward who is 12 or older when an application for guardianship is filed. Nathan was never personally served with Father’s guardianship application—he was only served with Mother’s separate application, which is a different case seeking different relief.
While parties generally can waive personal jurisdiction, a proposed ward cannot waive the requirement of personal service. Texas Estates Code § 1051.105 explicitly states that “a person other than the proposed ward” may waive service, and § 1051.055(e) provides that an attorney ad litem cannot waive personal service for the proposed ward. The court distinguished this case from In re Guardianship of Fairley, where the proposed ward had been served with both applications and only technical defects in service existed. Here, Nathan received no service whatsoever regarding Father’s application—a complete lack of service, not a curable technical defect. The court concluded that because Nathan was never personally served with Father’s guardianship application, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Nathan, making the guardianship order void.
Key Takeaways
- In guardianship proceedings, a proposed ward 12 or older must be personally served with citation for each separate guardianship application, even if served with another party’s application.
- A proposed ward cannot waive the requirement of personal service, either directly or through an attorney ad litem, meaning an absolute compliance with service requirements is mandatory.
- Complete failure to serve differs fundamentally from technical service defects; defects may be waivable through general appearance and participation, but total lack of service cannot be cured.
- Service on the respondent with one application does not satisfy the statutory requirement to serve the proposed ward with each separate applicant’s application.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that guardianship procedures contain strict due-process protections for vulnerable incapacitated persons. The court’s rigorous application of service requirements reflects that even well-intentioned family guardianship proceedings must comply with statutory safeguards. By distinguishing complete lack of service from technical defects, the court ensured that proposed wards cannot lose their rights through procedural shortcuts, emphasizing that representation by an attorney ad litem—while important—cannot substitute for personal notice of the actual guardianship application being filed against them.
The ruling has practical significance for guardianship practitioners: when multiple parties seek guardianship of the same person, each must ensure the proposed ward is personally served with his or her specific application. Failure to do so leaves the court without jurisdiction, regardless of the merits of the guardianship petition or the quality of the proposed ward’s legal representation.