O pinion filed November 6, 2014



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ _ ______ 

### No. 11

- 1 4

- 00 2 22

- CV

____ _ ______ 

### IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ESTHER ABELL DENTON , DECEASED

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Midland County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. P14779

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, Douglas A. Denton , filed a pro se not ice of appeal in which he indicated that he wished to appeal various rulings and orders of the trial court with respect to the administration of hi s mother’s estate

. As listed in his notice of appeal, Appellant attempts to appeal from the following rulings and orders of the trial court: the order granting the administrator’s motion to quash a deposition and motion for protective order; the verbal ruling denying Appellant’s motion for continuance; the verbal ruling to not accept Appellant’s evidence of incomplete admini stration; the order granting the administrator’s application to appoint a receiver for the Esther Denton Trust for Douglas A. Denton ; the overruling, by2 operation of law, of Appellant’s motion for new trial with respect to the order appointing a receiver; and the overruling, by operation of law, of Appellant’s motion for new trial with respect to the order quashing a deposition and granting a protective order. Upon receiving an d filing the record in this case , the clerk of this

court notified Appellant by letter that the various orders and rulings mentioned in the notice of appeal did not appear to be final, appealable orders and that the appeal from the order appointing a receiver did not appear to be timely filed. We requested that Appellant provide a re sponse showing grounds to continue this appeal, and we notified Appellant that the appeal may be dismissed

. Appellant has filed a n appropriate response ; however , we must dismiss this appeal. Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu , 233 S.W.3d 835, 840

– 41 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) ; see T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.014 ( West Supp. 2014 ) (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders)

. We recognize that an appeal from an interlocutory order that appoints a receiver is expressly authorized by statute. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. § 51.014(a)(1). However, to perfect an inter locutory appeal, which is an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal must be filed within twenty days after the order was signed. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(b), 28.1(a), (b). Filing a motion for new trial or a request for findings of fact does not extend the time to perfect an accelerated appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.1(b). Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed eighty

- five days after the trial court signed the order granting the administrator’s application to appoint a receiver for the T rust. Thus, Appellant did not timely perfect an interlocutory appeal from that appealable interlocutory order. In his response, Appellant correctly state s that his notice of appeal “was filed timely for appeal of a final order, but was not timely filed for appe al of an interlocutory order.”3 We also recognize that p robate proceedings may have multiple judgments that are final for purposes of appeal. De Ayala v. Mackie , 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006) ; see T EX

. E ST

. C ODE A NN

. § 32.001 (West 2014 ). An appeal fr om a probate order may be authorized by “ an express statute, such as the one for the complete heirship judgment, declaring the phase of the probate proceedings to be final and appealable .” De Ayala , 193 S.W.3d at 578 (quoting Crowson v. Wakeham , 897 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex. 1995)) ; see E ST

. § 202.202 (heirship) ; see also id. §§ 351.053, 355.057, 355.058, 355.158(d), 356.556 (other express declarations of finality)

. If not expressly authorized as final or appealable by

statute , a probate order is immedia tely appealable when it dispose s of all parties or issues in a particular phase of the proceedings

. De Ayala , 193 S.W.3d at 578. Otherwise, the probate order is interlocutory and is not a final judgment. Id. The rulings and orders listed in Appellant’ s notice of appeal are interlocutory because they do not dispose of all of the issues in a particular phase of the underlying proceeding and because no statute declares them to be final , appealable probate orders

. See id. This court has no jurisdiction with respect to Appellant’s untimely appeal from the interlocutory order appointing a receiver. See Gibson v. Cuellar , 440 S.W.3d 150, 153

– 56 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.); Fortenberry v. Cavanaugh , No. 03

- 07

- 00310

- CV, 2008 WL 4997568, at * 23

– 24 (Tex. App.

— Austin Nov. 26, 2008 , pet. denied ) (mem. op.)

. Nor do we have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from (1) the order granting the motion to quash and motion for protective order, (2) the denial of the motion for continuance, (3) the refusal to accept evidence, or (4) the overruling by operation of law of the motions for new trial that relate to the above orders ; these are interlocutory and are not being appealed in conjunction with a final, appealable order or judgment

.4 Accordingly, we dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdiction

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

November 6 , 2014 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J., and Bailey , J.