Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Probate Docket Summary topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Chambers County probate court admits multiple wills, appoints executors

Chambers County Probate Court · April 22, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Chambers County Probate Court admitted several wills and appointed executors (mostly without bond) across a routine docket, noting administrative matters including a missing notary stamp on one will and a request to reset one case for scheduling reasons.

The Chambers County Probate Court admitted multiple wills and appointed independent executors during a routine docket, with judges issuing letters testamentary and waiving appraisal requests in several estates.

At the start of the docket, Attorney Colton Wade Mayo introduced Eileen Lewis, a Texas notary who testified she witnessed Richard Zavala sign a will dated July 18, 2023. Lewis confirmed the signer was over 18, the two witnesses were over 14 and that Zavala appeared of sound mind. Counsel noted the notary stamp did not appear on that copy; despite that omission the court admitted the will to probate and authorized letters for the named executor, Lavada Varner. Judge Chiuminatto stated on the record, “Hereby admit the will to probate and authorize letters.”

The court handled a short scheduling request in the Ronald Latsey matter and agreed to reset the case at counsel’s request. Court staff (Christie) was asked to note the scheduling change.

In the matter of Steven Bailey Stelley, a son identified by the court as Mr. Stelley confirmed a December 2022 will that named him executor had not been revoked. Counsel asked that the original will be admitted and that letters testamentary be issued without bond; the court acknowledged the petition and the judge noted that a formal order needed to be filed (counsel said an electronic outage caused a brief delay in delivering the order to the court).

Counsel representing the estate of Stephanie Lynn Green told the court she died Dec. 10, 2025, that the estate is non‑taxable and asked the court to waive appraisal requirements when admitting the filed will. The court accepted the representation and noted counsel would submit the necessary order.

For Linda Kay Gonzales (died Dec. 15, 2025), counsel presented a July 16, 2025 will naming Julian Perez Gonzales Jr. as executor; the court recognized the document and asked that letters be issued to the named executor.

Two related Sandlin matters were addressed. Counsel characterized Etha G. (Etha Gail) Sandlin’s 1992 will as a muniment of title because more than four years had passed since her death; the petition argued there was no necessity for administration. For Ronald ("Ronnie") Wayne Sandlin, counsel said administration was necessary and requested appointment of Marcus Sandlin and Brian Sandlin as independent co‑executors without bond; the court acknowledged both filings.

In the case of David Herbert Merrill (died Jan. 14, 2026), counsel said Merrill’s 2014 will named his wife Wandina as executor but that she is unable to serve due to illness; the couple’s daughter, Megan, who presented a power of attorney, was accepted as successor executor and the court admitted the will and issued letters.

Finally, in Jacqueline Hanks Johnson’s matter (died Feb. 22, 2026), counsel confirmed a 1998 will that originally named her husband as executor now designated daughter Jennifer Susan Schubert to serve as independent executor without bond; counsel also requested appraisal waivers and the court admitted the will.

Across the docket the court routinely found necessities for administration where required, authorized letters testamentary for named executors (frequently without bond), and accepted filings such as a muniment of title for an estate where administration was unnecessary. Counsel and the court noted a few administrative items — chiefly a missing notary stamp on one will and an electronic outage delaying submission of a formal order — that did not prevent the court from admitting the filings it found to be valid.

The court concluded the docket items with the usual admissions and authorizations; where counsel said orders were missing or would be filed, the court asked for those documents to be submitted to the judge’s office.