1 In The 

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

__________________ NO . 09 - 22 - 00 265 - 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 No s. 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 Plaintif f

’s Motion To Sever Trust Refo rmation 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 Co urt 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, t he appellants shifted course, claim ing they were appealing from the trial court’s July 2022 order of severance , claiming that it function ed as a temporary injunction. To support that argument, the a ppellants cit e Qwest Communications Corporation v. AT & T Corp oration , 24 S.W.3d 334, 338 (Tex. 2000)

. According to the ap pellants, we have jurisdiction over appeal s 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 determine s an order’s classification

. Id . at 336. After examining the nature of th at order, the Qwest Court concluded the order function ed “ 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. T he 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 interlocut or y orde r that grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or
over rules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction)

. We conclude the a ppellants 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. 2 6 .1 (b); 26.3. T he appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f). APPEAL DISMISSED. PER CURIAM
Submitted on Oct ober 19, 2022 Opinion Delivered October 20, 2022 Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.