NO. 07-07 -013 5-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU NE 27, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE ESTATE OF C HA RLE S M AR K BE RRY , SR ., DE CE ASED

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE PRO BA T E CO URT NO. 1 O F T AR RA NT COU NT Y; NO . 05- 3215- 1; H ON ORABLE STEVE M . KI NG , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Charles Mark Berry , Jr., as co-inde pen den t executor of his fa the r’s estate, app eals from an o rd er

of the p ro b a te c o urt req uir ing thathe t ur n ov er to his tw o s is ters, als o c oind ependentex ecut ors, a cert ain su m of estat e funds. F ind ing w e are w it hout jur is dicti on becau se the o rd er

of w hic h Ber ry

co mplai ns is i nter loc utor y and not appeal abl e byst atute , w e w ill dism iss the ap pea l. Back g ro und Cha rl es Ma rk

Ber ry , Sr. died t est ate a t ag e one hundred. Hi s w il l, w it h a c odi ci l, w as admit ted to probate on the appl ic ati on of B er ry . In acc ordance w it h the cod ici l, theTex . Prob. C ode Ann

. § 2 45 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 007) ( sec ti on inter al ia a ll o ws 1 re cov er y f ro m personal represent ati v e of atto rn ey ’s fees i ncur re d i n obt ain ing personal 2 tes tator ’s three c hil dren, B er ry and appel lee s B ev er ly

Ja ne D oug las s a nd Di x ie Lee Bo ley w ere appoi nted co- ind ependentex ecut ors w it hout bond. Ber ry , an attor ney l ic ens ed to practice in Te x as, ap pea red on his o wn b e h alf in proba te proce edin gs w hile his sisters re tai ned an attor ney

w ho fil ed a noti ce of appearance in the c ase. Ber ryfil ed an inv entor

y , app ra is ment and l is t of cl aims v alu ing the probate est ate at $3 5,850. 05. The tota l inc lud ed c ash ass ets of $4,750. 05, and an est imat ed i ncome tax re fund of $6000. Al thoug h not cont ain ed in the cl er k’ s record, arg ument be fore t he probate cour t i ndi cat es appel lee s als o f ile d an inv entor y . The record does not inc lud e an order approv ing ei ther

i nv entor y but from co rrespon dence co ntai ned i n the record i t app ears t he compet ing i nv entor ies eac h drew obj ect io n s. There is no record i ndi cat ion the probate court ha s conside red the object ions. Appel lee s s ubseq uentl y fil ed a documenti n the probate cour t den ominat ed “Appl ic ati on for Turnov er R eli ef.” Theyco mplai ned t hat d espi te t hei r sta tus as co executors Be rry

unilate rally

den ied th em access to “the v ast m ajority of the Est ate ’s ass ets .” Theyr e que sted an o rd er co mpell ing Ber ry

tur n ov er

to them tw o- thi rd s o f the est ate’ s funds

. As g ro u n d s for thei r cl aim, appel lee s a ss erted t hei r eq ual enti tl ement t o esta te asse ts, the nee d to pa y their atto rney, and th e de sire to prevent a “w aste f ul drain on Es tate ass ets ” caus ed by ex pect ed future req uest s for funds. In a s eparate p arag ra ph of the moti on, a ppel lee s req uest ed attor ney ’s f ees acc ordin g to Probate Cod e secti on 245 for “ Ber ry ’s mis deeds al leg ed herein .” 1represe nta tiv e’s com pliance w ith ne glected sta tuto ry duty). 3 Ber ry fil ed an answ er

and spec ial ex cept ion s, ser v ed w ri tten dis cov er

y , and so ug ht a j ur y tr ial

. W hen t he c ourt se t the tur nov er moti on for hear ing , Be rr y obj ect ed to the set ti ng , mov ed for a c onti nuanc e, an d fil ed a ple a to the j ur is dicti on. On Feb ruary 6, 20 07, the pro bat e court heard the turno v er mo tion along w ith Berry’ s mo tion for contin uan ce an d plea to the jurisdiction. The hea ring w as brief , consu min g just ov er nine p a ges o f the repor ter ’s record. Ev ide nce w as not recei v ed. After hear ing the arg uments of the p arti es, the cour t v er bal ly deni ed Ber ry ’s moti on for cont inu ance and pl ea to the ju risdiction, ord ered “tw o-thirds of the asse ts of

the est ate transferred” to ap pellee s, and ordered medi ati on of the cas e. The cour t made no r uli ng on a ppe lle e s’ re que st for attor ney ’s fees. On F ebr uar

y 20, 2007, the cour

t si g ned an “o rd er

for t ur nov er” findi ng tw o- thi rd s o f the e st a te “ ass ets ” shoul d be “t ur ned ov er” to ap pel lee s. The dec re tal se cti on req uired Ber ry to del iv er

$7,2 36.04 to ap pel lee s “ pay abl e to th e E state.” The order made no menti on of the re maini ng tw o- thi rd s o f the es tate ass ets nor di d i t c ontai n a ru ling on appel lee s’ req uestfor

attor ney ’s f ees under

secti on 245. It did, how ev er , memor ial iz e the cour t’ s F ebr uar

y 6 v er bal order

co mpell ing medi ati on. The record does not cont ain findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law or ev ide nce of thei r re q uest

. Ber ry

ti mely noti ced an appe al.W e ha v e jurisdiction to conside r an imm edia te ap pea l of an inte rlocuto ry

order only 2 if a s tatut e ex pli ci tl y

so prov ide s. Sta ry v. D eBo rd , 967 S.W .2d 352, 352-5 3 (Tex . 199 8) (p er cu ri am); see Tex . C iv . Prac. & R em. C ode An n. § 51.014 (V er non Supp. 20 07) (e numerati ng per mitt ed appe als from i nter loc utor y orders)

. See Tex . R . C iv . P. 301 (u nle ss “ other w is e s peci all y

prov ide d by

l aw ” onl y

one final 3 judgme nt m ay be ren dere d in a cau se). 4 Iss ue Berrypresen ts three issues on a ppe al. Bycross-point, app ellees a rg ue we lack jurisdiction be cause the trial court’s orde r is interlocu tory a n d n o ta t y pe for w hich int er loc utor

y appeal i s per mitt ed. It is to the q uest ion of our j ur is dic ti on th at w e tur n first. 2 The Probate Cod e s tates “ [a]l l final orders of anyco urt ex er ci si ng or ig ina l probate ju ris d ict io n sh a ll b e ap p e a la b le t o t h e c o u rt s o f ap p e a ls. ” T e x. Pr o b . Co d e An n . § 5(g) (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. Probate proceed ing s p re sentan e x cept ion to the “ one final jud gm e n t ru le, ” as “ mult ipl e j udg ments final for p ur poses of appeal ca n be re ndered on 3 certain discrete issue s.” Lehm ann v. Har -C o n Co rp., 39 S. W .3d 1 91, 1 92 ( Tex . 200 1) ( citi ng Cro wson v

. Wakeham , 897 S. W .2d 7 7 9 , 7 8 3 ( Tex . 199 5) ). The P ro bate Cod e specif ies som e prob ate court orde rs are f inal and app eala ble, b ut con tains n o general rule defini ng a “final order” appeal abl e under se cti on 5( g ). Bozem an v . Ko rn blit, 232 S. W .3d 261, 262 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1st Di st. ] 200 7, no pet. ). I n Cr owson v . Wakeham , 897 S.W .2d 779 (Tex. 1995 ), the Su prem e Court of Te x as ad opt ed th e foll o win g stan dard distinguishing f inal, a p p e a lable p roba te cou rt orders f rom n ona ppe alab le interlocu tory orde rs:See Te x . Prob. Code An n. § 14 9B (Vern on 2 003 ). 4 5 if there is an e x press stat ute , such as th e on e for t h e c o mp lete h eirship jud g ment, decl ar ing the phase of the p ro bate proceed in gs to be final and app eala ble, th at sta tute controls. Ot herwi se, if there is a proce edin g of w hich the order in question may log ically be co n s id e re d a part, bu t one or more ple adi ng s a ls o par

t of thatproceedin g rais e i ss ues or par ti es not d is posed o f , t h e n t h e p ro b a t e o rd e r i s in t e rl o c u t o ry. 897 S. W .2d a t 783 ; see Br itti nghamSada De Aya la v. Ma ck ie, 1 9 3 S

. W

. 3 d 5 7 5 , 5 7 8 (T e x. 2 0 0 6 ) (qu o ti n g an d ap p lyin g Cr owson ). No one contend s an ex press probate code prov is ion declares an order lik e tha t at issue he re is fina l and ap pea lable. The parties disa gree o n the ultima te ef fect of t he o rder, and t hus dis ag re e on the p hase of this i ndependen t admi nis trati on i nto w h ich the order falls. Berry

conte nds th e orde r ef

fects a direct ed d istribution of assets of

the est ate . His re ply br ief emphas iz es that suc h an order i s n ot p e rm issibl e i n an ind ependent admini strati on unt il tw o y ears h ave ex pired from t he dat e of the order appoi nti ng the inde pen den t executor. App ellees chara cteriz e the order as ne cessary to the pe rforma nce 4 of thei r duti es as co -indep endent ex ecut ors, inc lud ing the duty to pay att or ney ’s fees inc u r r e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a d mi n i s t ra t i o n o f t h e e s t a t e . Th e i r t u r n o v e r a p p l i c a t i on c it ed Proba te Cod e sectio n 24 2 i n s upp ort of their cont ent ion th ey w ere en titled to have their attor ney ’s fees pai d as admi nis trati on ex pense s, and c omplai ned t hat B er ry refu se d to del iv er es tate funds “ for s uch pay ment .

. . . ” W e ex pres s no op i ni on on th e prop er c ha rac te r i z at i on of th e tr i al c ourt’s order. Reg ardle ss w hether

i t effects a di str ibu ti on or si mply orders t hat e ach of th e co -6

ind ependentex ecut ors h av e pos ses si on of a s hare of the est ate’s funds dur ing adm ini s trat i on , w e fi nd i t i nt er l oc ut or y . Be r r y s up po rts hi s c on te nt i on th at th e or der is a ppeal abl e as a de cree of par ti ti on and dis tr ibu ti on w it h c it ati on to In r e Pa di l la , 103 S.W .3d 5 63 ( Tex .App. –San A ntoni o 2003, no p et.)

. In P a dilla the tr ial co urt t ri ed a suc ces sor

i ndependen t ex ecut ri x ’s mis appropr iat ion cl aims ag ain st her predece ss or and h e a rd a n a p p l i c a t i o n fo r p a rt i t i o n a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e e s t a t e . I tt h e r e a ft e r entered a decree th at t he appe ll ate c our t found a ddress ed al l the reli ef req uest ed for the mis appropr iat ion , and i denti fied th e persons enti tl ed to a s hare of the e st a te an d the perce nta ge to w hich ea c h w as en titled. It fo und the de cree w as a f inal ap pea lable jud g ment. Id

. a t 5 6 6. The order at is sue here req uires Ber ry to del iv er

$7,2 36.04 to appel lee s. As note d, t he record before us contai ns Ber ry ’s inv entor y va lui ng the probate est ate a t $35 ,850. 05. The record al so re flects d isa gre ement ov er the inv entor

y . If the order i s o ne for dis tr ibu ti on, i t mani festl y does not re solv e al l the i ss ues neces sar y to achi ev e final ity

on t he di str ibu ti on of the est ate. If one accep ts app ellees’ cha racterization of the ord er as placing estat e asse ts in the ir hands to allow

them t o pay their reason able and nece ssaryatto rney’s fees, one must cons ide r that Ber ry

has co ntended thata p p e lle e s’ att or ney has represent ed th em ind iv idu all y

and not in thei r capac ity as ex ecut ors, and t hat t he tu rn ov er appl ic ati on w as an effort t o req uire hi m to b ear a s hare of the cos t of t hei r attor ney ’s fees. The c ontent ion s raise issues no t resolved bythe court’s orde r, co mp elling th e conclu sion it is inte rlocuto ry under the tes t i n Cr

owson , 897 S.W .2d a t 783

.7

Moreover, as note d, by their turnover applicat ion, a ppe llees also sou ght atto rney’s fee s i nc ur r ed a s a r es ul t of t he i r b rot he r ’ s fai l ure to d el i v er tw o- th i rds o f t he e s ta te t o th em . W hether Ber ry eng ag ed in condu ct jus ti fyi ng an aw ard acc ordin g to Probate Cod e s ect ion 245 w il l re q uire ev ide nce of neg lect and resul ti ng co sts

. Cf . F il li on v . O sbor ne, 585 S. W .2d 842, 846 ( Tex .C iv .App. –Ho ust on [1 st Di st. ] 1979, no w ri t) (d ependent admini strati on)

. As noted als o, the probat e court did not rec eiv e ev ide nce at the heari ng , and the order i s s il ent on th e i ss ue of

appel lee s’ se cti on 245 re q uestfor a ttor ney ’s fees. F or thi s reason al so, the t u rn o ve r o rd e r i s in t e rl o c u t o ry. W e find the o rd er

di d notdi spos e of al l is sues i n the p h a se of the p ro ceedi ng for w h i c h i t w a s b roug ht. De Ay ala , 193 S.W .3d at 578 . W e con clude the ord er is int er loc utor

y , l ack ing the attr ibu tes nec ess ar y for a ppealab ili ty

under se cti on 5[ g ]. Mo re o ve r , t h e in t e rl o c u t o ry o rd e r i s n o tm a d e a p p e a la b le b y st a t u t e . Ac c o rd in gl y, expressing no o pinion o n the p ropriety of t he trial co urt’s “order for turno v er,” w e susta in appel lee s’ cross -p oin t and di smi ss the appeal for w ant o f subj ectmatte r jur is dic ti on.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice