### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 21
- 00132
- CV

Elena Karets , Appellant

v. Christen Mark Anthony Gumbs and Marita Martina Gumbs , Appellee s

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 19
- 1124
- CP4 , THE HONORABLE J OHN B. MCMASTER , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Elena Karets seeks to appeal from a judgment signed in a probate proceeding.
Because we conclude that the judgme nt is not a n appealable judgment , we dismiss th e appeal for

wan t of jurisd ict ion.

Generally, this Court has jurisdiction o ve r appeal s from final judgme nts. See
Lehmann v. Ha r - C on Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) . A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. Id. P ro bate proceedin gs , h o weve r , a re an exception
to the “ on e final judgment ” rule

. De Ayala v. Mack ie , 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006)

. A

p robate proceeding consists of a continuing series of events, in which the pro bate court may
mak e decisions at various points in the adm inist rati o n of the estate on which later decisions
will be based. Logan v. McDanie l , 21 S.W.3d 683, 688 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2000, pet. de nied)

. Therefore, i n a probate proceeding, a n order on a discrete issue is appe alable before the entire proceeding is c onclu d ed i f an expres s statu t e declares that phas e of the proceeding from which2

the order arises to be final and app eal able or if the order disposes of all parties or issues for
which the particular part of the proceeding was brought. De Ayala , 193 S.W.3d at 5 7 8 ; C r o wso n v. Wakeham , 897 S.W.2d 779, 7 83 (Tex. 1995)

.

In this case, after Victor Gumbs died without a will in October 2019, Karet s filed an application for determi nation of he i rship and letter s of a dministration in his estate. 1 In
her application , Kar e t s id entified th r e e h eirs : he rself , as Victor ’ s common
- law spou se; Ma rita
Martina Gumbs , as his adult daughter; and Chri sten Mark Ant hony Gumbs , as his adult son. In a
sub sequ ent amended applicatio n for determination of hei rship, Karet s i d entified thr ee a d diti onal
he irs : J o s e Gonzale z, Vic tor Gonzalez, and Gabriella Gonzale z , as Victor ’ s grandchildren by a

son that predecea sed him

. In her application , Karets also sought declaratory relief, specifically, a
decla ration that she “ [was] dec edent ’ s spouse. ” K a rets alleged that she and Victor ente red in to a
d om estic partn ership on Jul y 25, 2018 , and “ repres e nted t o other s that t h e y [were] married. ”

Christen later filed a counter

- application fo r d etermination of h eirship and letter s of depen dent administrati o n
. Ch risten ’ s counter

- application , like Karets ’ s application, identified
Victor ’ s k nown heirs as himself, hi s si s ter Mar tina, and Vi c tor ’ s t hree grandchi ldren. A c co rd i ng to Christen ’ s counter

- application, however, Vi ctor was not m arried at the time of h i s deat h.

On F eb ruary 26, 2021, fo ll owing a n evidentiary hearing, the trial court signed a

“ final judgment on petition for declar atory judg me nt and ord er after tri al befor e the court. ” Ka re t s then filed her n otice of appeal in this Court, seeking review of the February 2021 judgment.

Th e Cler k of this Court noti fied Karets by letter that i t ap p e ar ed fr om the clerk ’ s record that this Court la ck s jur i sdiction o ver her appea l

. In res po nse to our jurisdictional inquiry,

1 Becaus e the d ecedent shares the sa m e last name as the appellees, for clarity we will refer to the dec ed en t and the ap pell ees by t heir first na mes.3

Karets contends that the trial co u rt ’ s jud gment is final and appealable under Sect ion 202.202 of
the Texas Estate s Code

. Under that provision , a judgment i n a pr oceeding to de clare heirshi p is a
final , appeal able judgment

. See Tex. Est

. Co de § 202.202

. A fin al ju d gm e nt i n a proceed ing t o d eclar e heirship must include the n a mes of the heirs of th e decedent and the heirs ’ respective
shares and interests in the decedent ’ s proper ty

. S ee id. § 202.20 1 (a)(1) , ( 2) ( “ Req uir ed Statements
in Ju dgem ent ” )

. A cer tified co p y of that judgment may th e n be fil ed for record in the office o f the county clerk, recorded in the deed records , and inde xed in the name of the dec edent as grantor and in the name of the he irs as gra ntees

. See id

. § 202.206

.

H ere, in its F eb rua ry 2 021 j udgment , the tr ial c ou rt f ou nd t ha t (1) Vic t or and
Kare ts l i ved together in Te xas and co
- owned real property in George tow n; (2) “ [t]here was no
agre ement to be married between [Vic tor] and [Karets ] ” ; and (3) “ [ t]here was no infor ma l marriag e be twe en [Vic t o r ] and [Karets]

. ” T he tr i al court als o directed h ow the proc e e ds from the sale o f the Georgetow n property would be dist r ibuted between Kare t s a nd Victor ’ s estate

. The trial court
d id not , however, mak e any de ter mination s as to any oth er pote nt ia l h ei rs or t heir resp ective
shares an d inte rests in the estate , as plead ed by both Kare ts and C hristen

. Con se quently, that part of the heirship proceeding remains p en ding , and the tria l court ’ s February 202 1 ju dgment i s
i nterl ocutory and not reviewable on appeal

. 2 S ee C rowson , 8 97 S.W.2d 78 2

- 8 3 ( concluding that

sum mar y judgm ent determin ing that appellant was not de cedent ’ s common
- law spouse was interlocut ory because it did not dispose of appellees ’ pendin g h eir ship cla ims ) ; In re Estate of

2 Karets c ont ends that the trial cou rt ’ s judgment is fina l and appeal able under Sect ion 202.20 2 , des pite t he fact that it does n ot name any he i rs o r their respective interes ts , see T ex. Est. Code § 202.20 1 , because the judg ment “ re solved all disputed issu e s and the sol e re ma in ing p arties were aligned. ” Whil e it m ay be t rue , as Karets suggests , t hat th e partie s do not dis agree as to who ar e Vict o r ’ s re m aining heirs, no thi ng in the recor d indicates that this agreem ent a s to h eirship and righ ts in the estate ha s been r edu ced to a f ina l judg ment

. See id . § § 202.20 1 , .202

.4

Gosw ami , No. 05

- 19

- 00 20 8

- CV , 2 0 19 Tex. A pp. LEXIS 76 1 7, at * 2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Aug. 2 3, 2019, no pet. ) ( mem. op.) (con cluding that order denying counter

- applicatio n to determine
heirsh ip was i nterl ocutory because original a ppl ication to determine he irship rema ined pending );
In re E s tate of Wright , N o. 05

- 1 4

- 0025 6

- CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 531 5, at * 3 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 20 14, n o pet. ) (mem. op.) (concl uding that order d e claring that appellant was not
dec edent ’ s common
- law spou se was int e r l o cut or y bec au se clai m as common law spouse was

“ pa rt o f the l arger he i r ship p r oceeding that [had] not been finally determined ” by trial court ) ; In re Estate of Loveless , 64 S .W.3d 564, 570 (Tex. App.

— T exarkan a 20 01, no pet. ) (concluding
that s umm ary jud g men t determin ing that appe llant was not decedent ’ s common
- law spo use wa s
i nterl o cutory because it did not add re ss rights of other heirs identified in appellant ’ s pleadi ngs)

. Accordingly, w e di smiss the appeal for w a nt o f juri sdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 4 2.3 (a)

.

_______________________ ___________________ Chari L. Kell y , Justice
Befor e Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly
Dismissed for Want of J uri sdi ction
Filed: July 8, 2021