the creditor’s claims were barred because the statute of limitations had run. Id. On appeal, this court held: “It is well settled that in an administration of a decedent’s estate under the direction of the probate court, the allowance of a claim by the administrator and approval thereof by the probate court suspends the running of the statute of limitations during the pendency of the administration.” Id. Palfrey is unpersuasive under the facts before us. The Palfrey court held that when a creditor has a claim against an estate, the estate administrator acknowl edges and allows the claim, and the estate is still pending in the trial court, limitations does not begin to run on the creditor’s claim against the estate. Id.; see also Wygal v. Myers, 76 Tex. 598, 13 S.W. 567, 568 (Tex.1890) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). In situations described in
holding that because property was no longer property of the estate the court could not order turnover holding that when the claim was duly established as a valid claim against the estate the laws of limitation could no longer apply while the estate was being administered under the probate law holding that a claim for breach of contract against a lawyer regarding estate taxes arose no later than the date on which the estate tax return was filed not when the alleged error was discovered holding that a legal malpractice claim arising from errors by an attorney in rendering estateplanning services is properly brought by the personal representative of the estate when excess estate taxes are paid by the estate in contravention of the decedents intended estate plan recognizing that the party can instead file a claim against the estate