1 

## NO. 12

- 22

- 00046

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF TH E ESTATE
OF HELEN GAYLE WELLS,

DECEASED §
§
§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO

. 3

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Appellant, Kelcey Melissa Well s , filed a notic e of appeal from (1) a n April 12, 2019
order excluding expert witn ess testimony , (2) a June 10, 2019 or der g ranting a partial summary judgment motion filed by A p pel le e, Karen Donnell W ells and denying Kelcey ’ s cross
- motion for partial summary judgment , (3) a September 28, 20 21 order granting Karen ’ s motion for partial

su mmary judgment , (4) a September 28, 2021 order granting Karen ’ s no evidence summary judgment motion on fraudulent inducement, (5) a February 8, 2022 order granting Karen ’ s motion for partial summary judgment on la ck of standing, (6) a February 8, 2022 orde r granting
Karen ’ s motion for partial summar y judgment on limitations, and (7) a February 8, 2022 order granting Karen ’ s no evidence summary ju dgment motion on the claim for distributions fo r health, education , maint enance, and support

. The not ice states that the three Febru ary 8 orders

“ p urportedly dispose of all remaining claims a nd all parties in the case. ”
Karen filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the trial court has not en tered a final judgment and Kelcey cannot appeal the orders in q uestion. According to Karen, the three orders dispose of specific, identified claims alleged by Kelcey and contain no l anguage purporting to d ispos e of all parties and claims. Karen assert s that she has a pending claim for declaratory judgment and attorn ey ’ s fees , but none of the challenged orders dispose of her
claim s

. In response, Kelcey denie s Karen ’ s entitlement to attorney ’ s fees, but “ ag r ees that the
trial court did not enter an order that specifically addresses and disposes of Appellee’s claim for2 attorney’s fees

. ” Accordin gly, she d oes not object to the appeal being dismissed until the trial court signs an order address ing Karen ’ s clai m for attorney ’ s fees.
When “there has not been a conventional trial on the mer its, an order or judgment is not
fi nal for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it f inally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann
v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001)

. “ Probate proceedings are an exception to
the ‘ one final j u dgment ’ rule; in such cases, ‘ multiple judgments final for purposes of app eal can
be rendered on certain discrete issues. ’ ” De Ayala v. Mackie , 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006 ) (quoting Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 192). An interlocutory order on a discrete iss u e is appealable
if a n express statute declares t hat phase of the proceeding to be final and appealable

. Id

. Oth erwise, a probate order is final if it disposes of “all parties or issues in a particular phase of the proceedings.” I d

. at 579. “ [I]f there is a proceeding of which the order in question m ay logically be considered a part, but one or more pleadings also part of that proceeding raise issues or parties not disposed of,” the order is not final. Id

. at 578 (quoting Crowson v. Wakeham , 897 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex. 1995))

. T h is Court is unaware of any statute that expressly renders the orders app eal able as interlocutory and the parties have identified no such st a tutes

. N or do the orders dispose of
Karen ’ s claim for attorney ’ s fees ; con sequently, the orders do not amount to a final judgment.
See Palacio for Estate of Palacio v Palacio , No. 05

- 18

- 0035 7

- CV, 2019 WL 1785122, at * 1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Apr. 24, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( because claims for attorneys ’ fees
remain ed pending, sum mary judgment orders did not dispose of all parties and issues in particular phase of probate case ). Because the orde rs do not qualify as appealable interlocutory
orders or a final judgment, w e grant Karen ’ s motion to dismiss and we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Opinion delivered April 29, 2022

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley , J.3 

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFT H COURT OF A PPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 29 , 2022

NO. 12

- 22

- 00046

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF

HELEN GAYLE WELLS, DECEASED

Appeal from the Coun ty Court at Law No

. 3
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 42,565P )

THIS CAUSE came on to b e heard on t he motion of the Appell ee to dismiss the appeal herein, and the same be ing considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the mot ion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed for want of jurisdicti on , and that the decisio n be certified to the court below for observance. Each party s hall bear its own costs o f appeal. By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Wort hen, C.J., H oyle, J. and Neeley, J.