## In t he Court of Appeals Sec ond Appe llate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00167

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from Probate Court No. 2 Tarrant County, Texas Trial C ourt No. 2018

- PR00999 -2-A

Before Birdwell a nd Walker, JJ.; and Gonzalez, J

. 1 Memorandum Opinio n by Justi ce Birdwe ll

1 The Honorable Rub en Gonz alez, Judge of the 432nd D istrict Court of Ta rrant County, sitting b y assignm ent o f the Chief Justi ce of th e Texas Supreme Court pursuant to Section 7 4 .00 3 (h) of the Government Code. See Tex. Gov ’ t Code Ann. § 74.003(h). 

### I N THE 

### E STATE OF 

### K RISTY 

### M ARIE 

### T URNBOW 

### , D ECEASED2 MEMORANDUM OP INION Appellant Trevor Turnbow attempts to appeal t he probat e court ’ s order holding him in contempt and sanctioning him $100 , 000 for violating its cease

- and

desist order “ a t least ” ten times. We dismiss his app eal for want o f juris diction. Contempt orders are not appealable but are reviewable only by writ o f mandamus or habeas corpus. In re Janso n , 614 S.W.3d 724, 72 7 (Tex. 2020 ) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider those portions o f his complaint

. Further, g enerally, a party ma y appea l only from a final judg ment. Lehmann v.
Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) ; In re Estate of A gu ilar , No. 04

- 16

- 00813

- CV, 2018 WL 1176914, at *2 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Mar. 7, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)

. A j u dgment is final for app el late p urposes if it disposes of all p ending parties and claims in the record

. Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 195

. P robate proc ee dings , h owever, are an exception to the one

- final

- judgment rule; in such cases, a judgment dis p osing of certai n discrete issues ca n be final f or appellate
purposes
. De Ayala v. Mackie , 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006) (op. on reh ’ g) ; Aguilar , 2018 WL 1176914, at *2

. The n eed to review controlling, intermediate decisions
before an error can harm la te r phases of the proceeding has b een the j usti ficati on for
this rule

. De Ayala , 193 S.W.3d at 578

. But n ot every interlocutory order in a probate case is appealable , and d etermi ni ng whether a probate order is final for appe ll ate
purposes has prove n difficul t. Id.3 If th ere i s an express sta tute decl aring the phas e of the probate proceedings to be final and appealable, that statute controls. Id. A bsen t an express statute, a probate

c ourt order is final and appealable only if it dispose s of all parties or issue s in a parti cula r phase of the pr oceedings

. See id. at 579 ; Agui lar , 2018 WL 1176914, at *2 . If
the order does not end a ph ase of the proceedings but, instead, is but a s tep to wa rd
resolution of the proceedings, then the order is interlocutory. See De A yal a , 193
S.W.3d at 579 ; Aguilar , 20 18 WL 117 6914, at *2

. S anction order s nec e ssarily arise in the context of some other proceeding and

are not independently appealable until the t ri al court has ren dered a final judgment

. See In re Casey , 589 S.W.3d 850, 855 (Tex. 2019) (or i g. proceeding) ; 2 Vance v. Vance , N o. 10

- 10

- 00161

- CV , 2010 WL 2523442, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Waco June 2 3 , 2010, no pet
. ) (mem . op.) ; Elec

. Data Sys

. Corp. v. T yson , 86 2 S. W.2d 728 , 736 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1993, orig. p roceeding) ; see a lso T ex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(d ), 215.2(b)(8) , 21 5.3. This
is so because a s anct ion order dispose s of neither parties nor claims. See In re Estate of
Hutchins , No . 05

- 12

- 0 1163

- CV, 2012 WL 55 03 530, at * 2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas N o v. 13, 2012, no pet
. ) (mem. op.) (cit ing K ens eth v. Dall

. Cnty. , 126 S .W.3d 584, 6 00 (T ex. App.

— Dallas 2004, pet. denied ) , and Jobe v. Lapidus , 874 S.W.2d 764 , 766 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 19 94 , writ denied))

. “ A sanctions order must be tied t o the portion of

2 If , howev er, the order requires a party to pay the monetary sanctions be fore th e rendition of a final ju d gment and i f co mplying with th at order ha s a prec lusive
e ffect on th e sanctioned party ’ s access to the courts, manda mus potentially lie s . See id. at 851.4 the proceedings in which the sanctionable con duct occurred. ” Kenset h , 1 26 S.W.3d at
600. In response to the concerns that we expressed during oral argument , both parties filed post

- submission ju risdicti onal letter

- briefs. After rev iewing these letter

briefs, we hold that the sanction order is not ap pealable.
Turnbo w asse rt s th at the sa nction order was the l ast r em ai ning issue and that it made the judgment final. W e disagree

. B ecause a sanction o rder dispose s of n either
claims nor parties, Hutchins , 20 12 WL 5503530, at * 2 , it canno t make an otherwise
interl oc u tory pro ceedi n g final. 3
Turnbow attached to his letter

- brief a November 22, 2021 “ Notice of
Settlemen t ” to support his assertion that the sanctions were the l a st remaining issues

reso lved in the trial court. 4 We are no t persuad ed. A “ Not ice of Settl emen t ” is not an

3 I n deed, a ssum ing a final judgm ent exists, Turnbow ’ s argu ment would raise ot her concerns. A trial cou rt has no a u thority to award sanctions a fter it loses it s plenary power

. Scott & White Mem ’ l Hosp. v. Schexnid er

, 9 40 S.W.2d 594, 59 6 (Tex. 1 996) (op. on r eh ’ g ) ; I n re M.A.S. , 2 33 S. W.3d 915 , 925 (Tex. App.

— D alla s 2007, pet. denied ) (op. nunc pro tunc)

. M o tion s for sa nctions do not survive the expiration of the trial court ’ s plena ry jurisdict ion. M.A.S. , 2 33 S.W.3d at 925 ; Jobe , 874 S.W.2 d at 76 6

– 6 7

. We a re not, h owever, persuaded that a fi nal judgment exi sts , so w het her the tr ial c o urt signed the order aft er it s plena ry power expired does not appear to be an issue

.
4 Generally, an appellate court can review only the record as filed and can not review documents not incl uded in t he record or no t consi dered by the trial court. Healey v. H ealey , No. 12

- 15

- 00047

- C V, 2016 WL 4 098750, at * 3 n. 3 (Tex. App.

— Tyler July 29, 2016, pet. d enied) ( mem. op. on r eh ’ g) ; Burke v. Ins. Auto Auctions Corp. , 169 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tex. App

. — Da llas 2005 , pet . denied ). Howeve r, an appellate court5 ord er disposing of claims and parties. Hutchins , 20 12 WL 5503530, at * 2 . And the

“ Notice of Settlement ” is not a judgmen t or order signed by the jud ge. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Furthermore, in a ppellee Shayl a Turnbow Dunlap ’ s letter

- brief , sh e maintai ned th a t Turnbow later breached the settlement agreement , demonstrating that the parties ar e still litigating various issues in the probate court

. Because contempt orders are not in dependently appealab le and because
Turnbow has not shown that he is appealing an o rder disposing of a parti cular phase
of the pr obate proceedings , w e dismiss his appeal for want of jurisd ic tion. /s/ Wade Birdwell
Wade Bir dwell Justice
Delivered : July 7, 2022

can consider d o cuments outside the reco rd for the p urpose of determining its own jurisdiction over the case. See Sa bine Offshore Serv. v. City of Port Arthur , 595 S.W.2d 840, 841 (Tex. 1979); Healey , 20 1 6 WL 4098 750, at * 3 n. 3 ; Harlow Land Co. v. City of Melissa , 314 S. W .3d 713, 716 n.4 (Tex. A pp
. — Dallas 2 010, no pet.).