1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO
. 09
- 1 8
- 00 314
- C V



### ____________________

IN THE ESTATE OF JAMES E. FARMER A/K/A PETE FARMER

________ ________________________________________________________________ On A ppeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No
. 57 314

________ _______________________________________ _________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a probate proceeding involving a petition for declaratory relief and demand for an accounting. On July 24, 201 8, the trial court signed an order granting in part and denying in part the motion for partial summary judgment of p laintiffs Angela Khalil and Ryan Farmer, granting in part and denying in part the m otions for summary judgment of d efendants Lisa Ann Farmer Hunt and Lorraine Farmer, ordering that p laintiffs take nothing on their claims to the extent those claims seek

to recover non

- probate property or assets , and rendering declaratory judgment as to a joint will and characterization of non

- probate assets. On August 21, 2018, Angela2 Khalil and Ryan Fa rmer filed a notice of appeal asserting that the trial court’s order disposed of all issues in the case. Lisa Ann Farmer Hunt and Lorraine Farmer filed notices of appeal subject to motions to dismiss the appeal. Hunt filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. She contends that the trial court’s order neither disposed of p laintiffs’ claims, demand for accounting, and petit ion for declaratory judgment as to probate assets, nor disposed of d efendants’ claims for attorneys ’ fees. Hunt alleges that the language in the order stating that all other relief requested and not therein granted is denied does not make the order a final order because it follows a summary judgment proceeding rather than a trial on the merits. No response has been filed. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har

– Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). In p robate proceedings , however,

“ multiple judgments final for purposes of appeal can be rendered on certain discrete
issues. ” Id. at 192. If there is an express statute, such as the one for the complete heirship judgment, declaring the phase of the probate proceedings to be final and appealable, that statute controls. Otherwise, if there is a proceeding of which the order in question may logically be considered a part, but one or more pleadings also part of that proceeding raise issues or parties not disposed of, then the probate order is interlocutory.
Crowson v. Wakeham , 897 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex. 1995). The order is interlo cutory and not subject to immediate appeal if it “ does not end a phase of the proceedings,3 but sets the stage for the resolution of all proceedings [.]” De Ayala v. Mackie , 193 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tex. 2006). None of the appellants or cross
- appellants have identified a statute that makes the order appealable at this time. See, e.g. , Tex. Est. Code Ann. § 32.001(c) (West
2014 ). The order does not dispose of claims relating to probate assets or attorneys’
fees. We conclude the trial court’ s order is inter locutory and not subject to immediate appeal because it does not dispose of all issues in a particular phase of the proceedings below. We grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without reference to the merits

. APPEAL DI SMISS ED.

________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice

Submitted on October 31, 2018 Opinion Delivered November 1, 2018 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.