1 

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00265-CV

__________________

IN RE THE CAROLYN S. CLARK IRREVOCABLE LIVING TRUST

U/T/A July 28, 2017

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 457th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 19-06-07875-CV and 22-07-09262-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 12, 2022, Kristin Wilkinson Guardino and Leonard Guardino filed 

a notice of appeal from an order the trial court signed on August 21, 2020, an order 

granting a Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Trial Cause Number 

19-06-07875-CV. According to the notice of appeal, the August 2020 order became 

final when, on July 13, 2022, the trial court signed an “Order On Plaintiff’s Motion 

To Sever Trust Reformation Claims,” which severed those claims into a separate 

cause.
2

After the appellants filed their appeal, the Clerk sent the parties a letter asking 

the parties to state their positions about whether the August 2020 order remained in 

Trial Cause Number 19-06-07875-CV, or whether the order was severed into Trial 

Cause Number 22-07-09262-CV, and to explain how the trial court’s July 2022 order 

of severance made the August 2020 order final. 

In response to the Court’s request, the appellants advised the Court that the 

July 2022 order severing the claims of the Co-Trustee of the Carolyn S. Clark 

Irrevocable Living Trust didn’t make the trial court’s August 2020 order a final

order. Instead, the appellants shifted course, claiming they were appealing from the 

trial court’s July 2022 order of severance, claiming that it functioned as a temporary 

injunction. To support that argument, the appellants cite Qwest Communications 

Corporation v. AT & T Corporation, 24 S.W.3d 334, 338 (Tex. 2000). According to 

the appellants, we have jurisdiction over appeals from temporary injunctions and 

they assert “this case involves an appeal of the summary judgment order issued in 

lieu of” a temporary injunction, making it appealable under Texas Civil Practice and 

Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(4). We disagree the character and function of the 

trial court’s July 2022 order grants or denies temporary injunctive relief. 

In Qwest, the Court held it is the nature of the order, not its form that 

determines an order’s classification. Id. at 336. After examining the nature of that

order, the QwestCourt concluded the order functioned “as a temporary injunction[,]” 
3

which made the order immediately appealable since the order granted AT & T 

temporary injunctive relief. Id. at 337-38. 

But that’s not the character or function of the order of severance before us 

here. The trial court’s July 2022 order does not restrain or enforce any actions by 

anyone. It also does not affect an earlier order the trial court signed on October 8, 

2019, in which the trial court did grant the parties’ request for temporary injunctive 

relief. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (providing for appeal 

from an interlocutory order that grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or 

overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction).

We conclude the appellants have not shown the Court has jurisdiction to 

justify granting them an extension so that the appeal may proceed as an accelerated 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b); 26.3. The appeal is dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on October 19, 2022

Opinion Delivered October 20, 2022

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.