DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 21, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00967-CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF RICHARD LEON MEANKINS

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-23-03429-2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III

Appellant filed the underlying suit seeking temporary and permanent 

guardianship of her father. Although the trial court has yet to rule on the request for 

permanent guardianship and the record before us reflects a motion for guardian ad 

litem is pending, appellant has appealed the following orders: (1) order authorizing

the administrative assistant in the Office of Court Investigation to obtain protected 

information for use by the assigned court investigator, (2) order appointing a court 

investigator and authorizing the court investigator full access to information, (3) 

order denying appellant’s request for appointment of counsel, (4) order appointing 

an attorney ad litem for appellant’s father, (5) order dismissing “as expired” the 
–2–

application for temporary guardianship and authorizing the attorney ad litem to file 

an application for fees, and (6) order approving the attorney ad litem’s motion for 

fees and continuing the appointment. Because the orders are not appealable, we 

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

It is well-settled that an appeal may generally only be taken from a final 

judgment that disposes of all claims and parties. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 

39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). However, because probate and guardianship cases 

generally consist of a continuing series of events, and decisions made later in the 

proceedings may be based on decisions made earlier in the proceedings, a judgment 

in a probate or guardianship proceeding is deemed final even when other issues 

remain pending if (a) a statute expressly declares the phase of the probate proceeding 

in which the judgment is rendered to be final and appealable or (b) the judgment 

adjudicates a substantial right and disposes of all issues and parties in the phase of 

the proceeding in which it is rendered such that it would be properly severable. See 

De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006) (quoting Crowson v. 

Wakeham, 897 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex. 1995)); Logan v. McDaniel, 21 S.W.3d 683, 

688 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied); see also Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank v. 

Horsehoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex.1990) (claim is properly 

severable if controversy involves more than one cause of action, severed claim could 

be proper subject of independently asserted lawsuit; and severed claim is not so 
–3–

interwoven with the remaining claims that the claims involve the same facts and 

issues.”). 

Because neither circumstance appeared to apply here, we questioned our

jurisdiction over this appeal and directed appellant to file a letter brief addressing 

our concern. Appellant complied, but her response addresses the circumstances that 

warrant review of the trial court’s orders1rather than the question of the appealability

of the orders. 

No statute authorizes the appeal of any of the challenged orders, and the orders 

do not adjudicate a substantial right or dispose of all claims and parties in the phase 

of the proceeding in which they were rendered such that they would be properly 

severable. See Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank, 793 S.W.2d at 658. Therefore, we lack 

jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal and all pending motions. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a).

230967f.p05

 

1 Additionally, appellant motions for a trial by jury, appointment of counsel, and appointment of special 

master.

/Bill Pedersen, III//

BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
–4–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF 

RICHARD LEON MEANKINS 

No. 05-23-00967-CV 

On Appeal from the Probate Court 

No. 2, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-23-03429-

2.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Pedersen, III. Justices PartidaKipness and Garcia participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 21st day of December, 2023.