Sole-Beneficiary Executors May Appear Pro Se in Texas

Commentary on Maryvel Suday and the Estate of Olga Tamez de Suday v. Jesus Lozano Suday, Supreme Court of Texas (June 27, 2025)

I. Introduction

In Maryvel Suday and the Estate of Olga Tamez de Suday v. Jesus Lozano Suday, the Supreme Court of Texas addressed a recurring procedural problem at the intersection of probate law and the right to self-representation:

May an executor who is also the sole beneficiary of an estate appear in court pro se (without a lawyer) when litigating matters in the name of the estate?

Until this decision, several Texas courts of appeals had applied what they treated as an absolute rule: non-lawyer executors may not represent an estate in court and must hire licensed counsel. Those courts reasoned that an executor acts in a representative capacity for others (beneficiaries, heirs, sometimes creditors) and thus cannot, as a non-lawyer, advocate the legal interests of third parties.

The Supreme Court of Texas, in a unanimous per curiam opinion, narrowed that rule. Aligning Texas law with the prevailing federal approach, the Court held that where an executor is the sole beneficiary of the estate (and, on these facts, there are no creditors), the executor must be treated as asserting her own rights and is therefore entitled to appear pro se. It reversed the court of appeals’ dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution and remanded for consideration of the merits.

This commentary explains the background of the case, summarizes the Court’s holding, analyzes the authorities and reasoning the Court relied upon, clarifies the scope and limits of the new rule, and assesses its likely impact on Texas practice.

II. Background and Procedural History

A. The Underlying Dispute

The parties:
- Olga Tamez de Suday, now deceased, was married to Jesus Lozano Suday.
- Maryvel Suday, their daughter, later became independent executor of Olga’s estate and the sole beneficiary.
Divorce proceedings:
- Olga filed for divorce in Val Verde County, Texas, in 2017.
- The couple obtained a final divorce in Mexico.
- In August 2019, a Texas trial court entered a divorce decree recognizing the Mexican divorce and dividing the parties’ Texas property.
Olga’s death and administration of the estate:
- Olga died in October 2019.
- Her daughter, Maryvel, became the independent executor of Olga’s estate.
- Acting as executor and represented by counsel, she engaged in substantial litigation concerning the divorce and property division. The court of appeals affirmed the divorce and property distribution in 2020.

B. The Post-Decree Motions and Appeal

Between 2021 and 2023, for reasons not material to this pro se issue, Maryvel returned to the trial court in her parents’ divorce case, filing multiple motions. On June 27, 2023, the trial court entered a “final order” denying all of those motions.

Maryvel’s attorney timely filed a notice of appeal from that final order on behalf of “the Estate of Olga Tamez de Suday” (with Maryvel acting as executor). While the appeal was pending in the Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio), her counsel withdrew after she indicated that she no longer wanted his representation.

The court of appeals then:

Notified Maryvel that she could not represent the estate pro se.
Extended her briefing deadline to give time to obtain new counsel.
Ultimately dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution when she did not obtain new counsel.

The court of appeals’ dismissal rested on the “general rule” from earlier intermediate appellate decisions that a non-lawyer executor cannot appear in court on behalf of an estate. Maryvel sought review in the Supreme Court of Texas.

III. Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed. Its core holdings can be distilled as follows:

Recognition and narrowing of the “no pro se executor” rule:
- The Court acknowledged that several Texas courts of appeals have held that an executor generally may not represent an estate pro se.
- Without either endorsing or rejecting that rule in cases involving multiple beneficiaries, the Court assumed it applies when the executor truly acts in a representative capacity for others.
New rule for sole-beneficiary executors:
- Where the executor is the sole beneficiary of the estate, and no other beneficiaries or estate stakeholders’ rights are at stake, the executor is effectively asserting only her own rights.
- Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 7, a party may appear and prosecute or defend “his rights” in person; the Court held that a sole-beneficiary executor fits within this rule.
- Accordingly, such an executor has the right to appear pro se in Texas courts on matters involving the estate.
Alignment with federal precedent:
- The Court adopted the approach taken by several federal courts of appeals (including the Fifth Circuit), which allow a sole-beneficiary executor to litigate pro se.
- The Court noted that federal authorities often add a “no creditors” condition, and it expressly reserved judgment on how the presence of creditors might change the analysis in a future Texas case.
Application to this case:
- Here, Maryvel is the sole beneficiary of Olga’s estate, and the case involved no estate creditors.
- She alone stood to benefit from, or be harmed by, the outcome of the appeal.
- Thus, the court of appeals erred by barring her from appearing pro se and dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.

The Supreme Court granted the petition for review without oral argument, reversed the court of appeals’ dismissal, and remanded the case for the court of appeals to address the merits of the underlying disputes. It expressed no opinion on those merits.

The key doctrinal statement appears in Part III:

We hold that an executor may represent the estate pro se when she is also the sole beneficiary of the estate.

This is the new, controlling rule in Texas, subject to the factual and doctrinal limitations discussed below.

IV. Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents and Authorities Cited

1. The Intermediate Courts’ “General Rule” Against Pro Se Executors

The Court began by acknowledging that several Texas courts of appeals have adopted a seemingly categorical rule that an executor may not represent an estate pro se. It identified Steele v. McDonald, 202 S.W.3d 926 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.), as the apparent origin of this Texas line of authority.

Subsequent opinions followed Steele and extended its principle:

Swain v. Dobbs, 692 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2023, no pet.).
Estate of Maupin, 2019 WL 3331463 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 25, 2019, pet. denied).
Kankonde v. Mankan, 2020 WL 5105806 (Tex. App.—El Paso Aug. 31, 2020, no pet.).

These courts reasoned:

An executor acts in a representative capacity for the estate.
That representative capacity includes representing the rights of other beneficiaries or heirs, who are not before the court in their own names.
Non-lawyers are generally prohibited from representing third parties in court.
Therefore, a non-lawyer executor cannot appear pro se on behalf of an estate; the estate must be represented by licensed counsel.

The Supreme Court did not overrule those decisions. Instead, it treated their general rule as assumed correct “in the estate context” when multiple beneficiaries or other represented parties’ interests are implicated. The Court then carved out and defined a critical exception when there is only a single beneficiary.

2. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 7 and the Corporate Counsel Rule

All the analysis hinges on Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 7:

Any party to a suit may appear and prosecute or defend his rights therein, either in person or by an attorney of the court.

Two features of this rule are central:

It speaks of a “party to a suit” — which, on its face, can include individuals and entities.
It allows a party to prosecute or defend “his rights” either personally or through counsel.

The Supreme Court previously relied on Rule 7 in Kunstoplast of America, Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. 1996). There, the Court held that a corporation must be represented by counsel, even though the rule is phrased in terms of a “party” appearing pro se. The logic is that a corporation is a distinct legal entity, separate from its owners, directors, or officers; thus, a non-lawyer individual cannot in substance represent another entity’s “rights” under Rule 7.

The courts of appeals analogized estates to corporations: both are juridical entities on whose behalf non-lawyers should not appear. The Supreme Court in Suday accepted this analogy only up to a point and used Rule 7’s “his rights” language to distinguish between:

Cases where an executor is truly asserting the separate rights of others; and
Cases where the executor’s interests and the estate’s interests are effectively identical because the executor is the sole person with any beneficial stake in the estate.

In the latter situation, the Court reasoned, the executor is not “representing others” within the meaning of Rule 7 and the non-lawyer representation prohibition.

3. Federal Appellate Decisions on Pro Se Representation by Estate Representatives

The Court explicitly aligned Texas law with “the prevailing rule in federal courts” under 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (which governs pro se appearances in federal court). The key federal decisions cited include:

Rodgers v. Lancaster Police & Fire Department, 819 F.3d 205 (5th Cir. 2016) (Fifth Circuit).
Bass v. Leatherwood, 788 F.3d 228 (6th Cir. 2015) (Sixth Circuit).
Guest v. Hansen, 603 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2010) (Second Circuit).

These cases generally adopt the following framework:

Under federal law, non-lawyers may appear only on their own behalf.
An executor who is the sole beneficiary is effectively litigating his or her own financial interests when pursuing claims on behalf of the estate.
Therefore, a sole-beneficiary executor may appear pro se on the estate’s claims in the absence of competing estate interests.
Many of these courts add a further condition that the estate has no creditors, or at least no creditors whose rights would be affected by the litigation.

The Supreme Court also cited federal appellate decisions that restrict pro se status where there are multiple beneficiaries or represented interests:

Iriele v. Griffin, 65 F.4th 1280 (11th Cir. 2023).
Murray ex rel. Purnell v. City of Philadelphia, 901 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2018).
Malone v. Nielson, 474 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2007).
Jones ex rel. Jones v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 401 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005).
Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963 (6th Cir. 2002).
Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 1997), later refined in Guest.

Collectively, these cases:

Allow pro se representation by an executor or personal representative only when no one else’s legal interests are effectively being litigated.
Forbid it when the estate has multiple beneficiaries whose rights might be affected by the litigation.
Often treat the presence of creditors as an additional factor weighing against pro se representation, though the boundaries of that factor differ by circuit.

The Supreme Court of Texas consciously adopted this structure: permitting pro se representation in single-beneficiary cases, while keeping the multi-beneficiary prohibition intact and reserving the creditor question for future decision.

4. Ex parte Shaffer (Tex. 1983): The Executor’s Right to Self-Representation

The Court drew an important parallel to its own prior decision in Ex parte Shaffer, 649 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. 1983).

In Shaffer:

An estate’s executor was sued by the decedent’s widow for breach of fiduciary duty.
The trial court repeatedly granted continuances at the executor’s request.
When his lawyer withdrew, the executor sought yet another continuance to find new counsel.
The trial court ordered him to obtain a lawyer by a date certain or be held in contempt; when he failed to do so, it jailed him.

The Supreme Court granted habeas corpus relief, holding that:

[O]rdering a party to be represented by an attorney abridges that person’s right to be heard by himself…

The Court observed that if the executor’s requests for continuances were abusive, the proper remedy was not to coerce him into hiring counsel but to require him to proceed to trial with or without an attorney.

In Suday, the Court recognized that Shaffer did not directly resolve whether an executor may represent the estate’s interests pro se. In Shaffer:

The executor was a named defendant, sued personally for breach of fiduciary duty.
Only his personal rights and liabilities were at stake in that litigation.

Even so, the Court in Suday treated Shaffer as both:

Consistent with the new rule — because both involve situations in which only the executor’s own interests are at stake; and
Possibly supportive of the proposition that when an executor is the only person whose rights are affected, the Constitution and Rule 7 protect her right to appear without counsel.

Thus, Shaffer serves as a doctrinal bridge: it guarantees a party’s right to self-representation in his own case and reinforces the notion that trial courts cannot compel litigants to hire attorneys under threat of contempt or dismissal where they are litigating solely their own interests.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. The Core Distinction: Representative vs. Personal Capacity

The heart of the Court’s analysis is a distinction between:

An executor acting in a representative capacity, where she protects the interests of multiple beneficiaries or other persons; and
An executor who, because she is the sole beneficiary, is effectively litigating only her own rights.

The general rule against non-lawyer representation of an estate is grounded in the first situation:

It is designed to protect non-party beneficiaries (and potentially creditors) from being prejudiced by the legal mistakes of an untrained executor.
It parallels prohibitions on non-lawyers representing corporations, minors, or incompetent persons, where the law insulates vulnerable or absent parties from DIY legal representation by someone who is not an attorney.

However, in a single-beneficiary estate:

There are no other beneficiaries whose interests can be harmed by the executor’s decisions or courtroom performance.
The executor is, in economic substance, the only real party in interest.
Any error or adverse outcome falls solely on that one person.

Thus, forcing such an executor to hire an attorney is not protecting others; it is simply:

A form of paternalism aimed at the executor herself; and
Potentially harmful if she cannot afford counsel or if legal costs would consume the very estate assets she is trying to preserve.

The Court criticized this as “unjustifiably paternalistic” and “plainly harmful”:

“Her interests can hardly be protected by handing her an automatic loss in the form of a dismissal of her claims.”

2. Rule 7: “His Rights” and the Nature of the “Party”

Under Rule 7, a party may prosecute or defend “his rights” personally. The Court essentially reasons:

In a multi-beneficiary estate, the executor’s “rights” are distinct from those of other beneficiaries, so the executor is representing others and cannot appear pro se without violating the non-lawyer representation rule.
In a sole-beneficiary estate, the executor’s beneficial interest and the estate’s interest coincide; any judgment will ultimately affect that one person only.
In such a case, the executor is – in effect – the “party” whose “rights” are at stake, fitting within the plain language of Rule 7.

Accordingly, Rule 7 itself supports the conclusion that a sole-beneficiary executor may appear without counsel — because she is not representing some other “person” under the rule, but only herself under a different legal label.

3. Constitutional Considerations: Due Process and Access to Courts

The Court also alluded to “serious potential issues arising under the federal and Texas Constitutions concerning due process and access to the courts.” While the opinion does not exhaustively analyze these constitutional questions, its reasoning can be summarized as:

Every person has a fundamental interest in meaningful access to the courts for the adjudication of her rights.
In some situations, financial constraints or practical barriers make hiring an attorney impossible or impractical.
To categorically forbid a sole-beneficiary executor from appearing pro se — and to dismiss her claims automatically when she cannot hire counsel — may effectively deny access to justice for that individual.
By recognizing a right for sole-beneficiary executors to appear pro se, the Court avoids these potential due-process and access-to-court problems.

Although the Court did not explicitly ground its holding in a state or federal constitutional provision, it used constitutional concerns as a strong policy argument and interpretive guide that favors a less restrictive reading of Rule 7 and of the executor’s litigation authority.

4. The Narrowness of the Holding

The Court repeatedly emphasized that its holding is narrow:

It did not decide the validity of the general rule barring executors from appearing pro se when there are multiple beneficiaries.
It explicitly reserved the question of how the presence of estate creditors affects the right of a sole-beneficiary executor to represent the estate pro se.
It confined its analysis to the specific circumstance where:
- The executor is the sole beneficiary; and
- No other persons’ beneficial rights in the estate are implicated; and
- On these facts, there are no creditors whose rights would be affected.

Notably, the Court’s formal holding statement in Part III — that “an executor may represent the estate pro se when she is also the sole beneficiary” — does not repeat the “no creditor” qualifier. However:

In Part II, the Court specifically notes that federal courts often include a “no creditors” requirement and that “the presence of creditors…raises distinct issues.”
The Court expressly states that, because there are no creditors in this case, it “need not decide — and instead expressly reserve[s] for a future case — whether and to what extent the executor of a single-beneficiary estate that does have creditors may represent the estate’s interests pro se.”

Thus, the most faithful reading is:

Binding rule: When an executor is the sole beneficiary and there are no other estate stakeholders whose rights are implicated by the litigation, she may represent the estate pro se.
Open question: Whether and how the presence of creditors or other interested parties might limit that right in future cases.

C. Impact on Texas Law and Practice

1. Immediate Procedural Consequences

The most direct impact is procedural: Texas trial and appellate courts must permit pro se appearances by executors who are also the sole beneficiaries of the estate, at least where no other interests (such as creditors) are affected by the litigation.

This means:

Courts of appeals may not dismiss an appeal “for want of prosecution” solely because a sole-beneficiary executor is unrepresented by counsel.
Trial courts may not order such executors to obtain counsel on pain of dismissal or contempt, where only the executor’s own interests are at stake.
Clerks and lower courts should treat filings by such executors as valid pro se filings, not as unauthorized practice of law.

2. Clarification of the Executor’s Litigation Status

Substantively, the decision clarifies that in single-beneficiary estates:

The executor and the estate are, for litigation purposes, economically indistinguishable.
The executor may effectively be treated as a party prosecuting or defending her own rights, even if the case caption or pleadings name “the Estate of X” as a party.

This could influence:

Standing analyses: Whether such an executor can sue or be sued in her own name, the estate’s name, or both.
Real party in interest determinations: Where courts inquire who, in substance, stands to benefit from or be bound by the judgment.

3. Access to Justice and Cost Considerations

The decision advances access to justice in probate and related family-law contexts by:

Allowing executors of small or modest estates, who may lack funds to hire counsel, to pursue or defend claims crucial to preserving the estate’s value.
Avoiding the perverse outcome where claims are dismissed not because of their lack of merit but because the executor cannot afford a lawyer.

However, it also implies:

Courts will increasingly see self-represented executors in certain probate-related disputes.
Judges and opposing counsel may have to adapt to more frequent pro se participation, with all the attendant challenges (procedural missteps, slower proceedings, and the need to ensure fairness while maintaining neutrality).

4. The Ongoing Validity of the General Prohibition

While Suday creates an exception, it does not overturn the general rule that:

A non-lawyer cannot represent a corporation;
A non-lawyer cannot represent another individual or multiple beneficiaries; and
A non-lawyer executor who represents the interests of more than one beneficiary (or other third party) may not appear pro se for the estate.

Thus:

In estates with multiple heirs or beneficiaries, the Steele line of authority remains in place: an executor must still hire counsel if the estate appears in court.
Other areas – such as guardianships, actions on behalf of minors, or litigation on behalf of incapacitated persons – are unaffected; non-lawyers may not represent those parties.
The corporate-counsel rule under Kunstoplast remains fully intact.

5. Open Issues for Future Litigation

The opinion invites, and to an extent necessitates, further development in several areas:

Presence of creditors:
- How should the law treat a sole-beneficiary executor when there are creditors whose rights might be indirectly affected by the litigation?
- The Court expressly reserved this issue; future cases may decide, for example, whether:
  - Executors in such cases may still represent the estate pro se, but subject to safeguards; or
  - Creditors’ presence categorically bars pro se representation, aligning with the stricter federal circuits.
Partial interests and disputed heirship:
- What if the executor believes she is the sole beneficiary, but heirship is contested?
- What if contingent beneficiaries exist (e.g., under a will that creates future interests)?
- Court will likely require a careful examination of whether anyone else’s rights are realistically at stake in the litigation.
Co-executors or co-beneficiaries:
- If two siblings are co-beneficiaries and one is the executor, may that executor proceed pro se? Under Suday, the answer is likely “no,” because she would be representing her sibling’s interests.
Scope of claims:
- The opinion deals with claims within a divorce/property-division context. Future cases may address whether the same rule applies to other types of estate litigation (e.g., wrongful death/survival actions brought by an executor, contract claims, tort claims involving estate property).

V. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Key Probate Terms

Estate: The collection of a person’s property, rights, and obligations that survive after death. This can include bank accounts, real property, personal property, and some legal claims.
Executor: The person appointed (usually by a will and then by the court) to administer the estate — gathering assets, paying debts, and distributing what remains to beneficiaries.
Independent executor: A type of executor under Texas law with relatively broad authority to administer the estate without extensive ongoing court supervision, intended to simplify and reduce the cost of probate administration.
Beneficiary: A person who is entitled to receive property or benefits from the estate (by will or, if no will, by intestacy laws).
Sole beneficiary: The only person who is entitled to inherit under the will or applicable law; no one else shares in the estate’s net assets.
Creditor: A person or entity to whom the decedent or the estate owes money or another legal obligation; creditors must usually be paid before beneficiaries receive distributions.

2. Pro Se Representation

Pro se (Latin for “for oneself”): Appearing in court to represent one’s own case without hiring an attorney.
Most legal systems allow individuals to represent themselves but prohibit non-lawyers from representing others — whether other individuals, corporations, or estates with multiple beneficiaries.

3. Representative Capacity vs. Personal Capacity

Personal capacity: When a person appears in court to litigate his or her own rights. For example, you suing someone who crashed into your car.
Representative capacity: When a person appears on behalf of someone else or on behalf of an entity. For example:
- A parent suing on behalf of a minor child;
- A corporate officer appearing on behalf of the corporation;
- An executor litigating claims on behalf of an estate with multiple heirs.
In representative roles, courts generally require a licensed attorney to protect the interests of those who are not personally before the court and who may not control or even fully understand the litigation decisions.

4. Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

Dismissal for want of prosecution: When a court dismisses a case (or an appeal) because the party has failed to move it forward – for example, by missing deadlines, failing to file required briefs, or otherwise showing no intent to prosecute the case.
In Suday, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution because no appellate brief had been filed by a licensed attorney, and it believed Maryvel could not file one herself.

5. Habeas Corpus and Contempt (from Ex parte Shaffer)

Contempt of court: A finding by a court that a person has disobeyed a court order or otherwise interfered with the administration of justice; can be punished by fines or jail.
Habeas corpus: A legal procedure used to challenge unlawful detention or imprisonment. In Ex parte Shaffer, the Supreme Court used habeas corpus to release the executor who had been jailed for failing to hire a lawyer.

VI. Conclusion: Significance in the Broader Legal Context

Maryvel Suday and the Estate of Olga Tamez de Suday v. Jesus Lozano Suday establishes a new and important rule in Texas law:

An executor who is also the sole beneficiary of an estate may represent the estate pro se.

Within its narrow factual boundaries, this decision has substantial implications:

It brings Texas law into alignment with the prevailing federal approach on pro se representation by estate representatives.
It clarifies that when no one else’s rights are at stake, an executor is not truly acting in a representative capacity but is instead asserting her own rights — which Rule 7 allows her to do personally.
It strengthens the principles of access to courts and self-determination in litigation, especially in probate disputes involving modest estates where legal costs might otherwise preclude any meaningful adjudication.
It preserves the general prohibition against non-lawyers representing others, particularly in multi-beneficiary estates, corporate contexts, and other representative situations, thereby protecting absent or vulnerable interests from untrained legal advocacy.
It highlights unresolved issues regarding estates with creditors or complicated beneficial structures, signaling that further doctrinal development will be needed to handle those more complex fact patterns.

Going forward, Texas courts must treat sole-beneficiary executors as having the same right of pro se representation as any other individual litigant. While this will not eliminate the advantages of legal representation — and may expose self-represented executors to the risks of navigating complex law and procedure — it ensures that the law does not itself bar them from vindicating their rights simply because they cannot or choose not to hire counsel.

In that sense, Suday is a significant access-to-justice decision in the probate and family-law intersection, carefully balanced by a narrow and fact-sensitive rule that continues to respect the longstanding limits on non-lawyer representation of others.

Sole-Beneficiary Executors May Appear Pro Se: Commentary on Maryvel Suday & Estate of Olga Tamez de Suday v. Jesus Lozano Suday