### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 10
- 00161
- CV WILLIAM R. VANCE, JR ., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT E XECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF FLORENE K. GRACE, DECEASED , Appellant v. CAROLYN G. VANCE , Appellee

From the County Court at Law No
. 1 Br azos County, Texas Trial Court No. 12,787
- PC

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This suit aris es from probate proceedings in the Estate of Florence K

. Grace,
deceased. William R. Vance, Jr., Individually and as Independent Executor of the Estate, appeals from two tr ial court orders: (1) an order holding him in contempt for failure to comply with a discovery order and ordering him to pay attorney’s fees; and (2) an order granting sanctions against him for violation of the contempt order. Carolyn
filed a motion to dis miss the appeal. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.Vance v. Van ce Page 2

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Brittingham

- Sada de Ayala v. Mackie , 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006). Probate proceedings give rise to a recognized exception to that general rule since multiple judgments may be rendered on discrete issues before the entire probate proceeding is concluded. Fernandez v.
Bustamante , 305 S.W.3d 333, 337 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (citing Brittingham , 193 S.W.3d at 578 )

. Not every interlocutory order in a probate case is appealable

. Brittingha m , 193 S.W.3d at 578. T he Texas Supreme Court has adopted a

test for determining jurisdiction: 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, t hat 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 interloc utory. Crowson v. Wakeham , 897 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex. 1995) ; Brittingham , 193 S.W. 3d at 578;
Fernandez , 305 S.W.3d at 337

- 38. In this case, there is no applicable rule or statute stating that either contempt orders or sanctions orders are final judgments . Neither order is an appealable interlocutory order. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008 )

. Moreover, contempt orders are reviewable by mandamus or habeas corpus, not direct appeal. See Pandozy v. Beaty , 254 S.W.3d 613, 616 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, no pet.); see also Smith v. Detrich , No. 03

- 07

- 00726

- CV, 2 010 Tex. App. LEXIS 238 , at *11

- 12 ( Tex. App.

— Austin Jan. 13, 2010, no pet. ) (mem. op.) . Sanctions orders do not dispose of all parties and claims; therefore, they are not final. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P.Vance v. Van ce Page 3

215.1(d); see also T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 215.2(b)(8); T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 215.3; Zep Mfg. Co. v. Anthony , 752 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding ) (Rule 215

“ clearly prohibits appeals of interlocutory sanction orders.”); Thomas & Son’ s, Inc. v.
Seabrook Land Co. , No. 01

- 09

- 00420

- CV, 200 9 Tex. App. LEXIS 7734 , at *1

- 2 ( Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 1, 2009, no pet. ) (mem. op.)

. Because neither the contempt order nor the sanctions order is an appropriate subject for direct appeal in this case, we grant Carolyn’s motion and dismiss t he appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

FELIPE REYNA Justice Before Justice Reyna , Justice Davis , and Judge Rick Morris 1 Dismissed for want of jurisdiction Opinion delivered and filed June 23, 2010 [CV06]

1 The Honorab le Rick Morris , Judge of the 146th District Court , sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Te xas pursuant to section 74.003(h ) of the Government Code. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 74.003(h ) (Vernon 2005).