Court Opinion

ID: 9913202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-27 07:09:50.910237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:45.319244
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 21, 2023

                                       In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-23-00967-CV

        IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF RICHARD LEON MEANKINS

                    On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2
                             Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. PR-23-03429-2

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
             Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia
                          Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
      Appellant filed the underlying suit seeking temporary and permanent

guardianship of her father. Although the trial court has yet to rule on the request for

permanent guardianship and the record before us reflects a motion for guardian ad

litem is pending, appellant has appealed the following orders: (1) order authorizing

the administrative assistant in the Office of Court Investigation to obtain protected

information for use by the assigned court investigator, (2) order appointing a court

investigator and authorizing the court investigator full access to information, (3)

order denying appellant’s request for appointment of counsel, (4) order appointing

an attorney ad litem for appellant’s father, (5) order dismissing “as expired” the
application for temporary guardianship and authorizing the attorney ad litem to file

an application for fees, and (6) order approving the attorney ad litem’s motion for

fees and continuing the appointment. Because the orders are not appealable, we

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

      It is well-settled that an appeal may generally only be taken from a final

judgment that disposes of all claims and parties. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.,

39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). However, because probate and guardianship cases

generally consist of a continuing series of events, and decisions made later in the

proceedings may be based on decisions made earlier in the proceedings, a judgment

in a probate or guardianship proceeding is deemed final even when other issues

remain pending if (a) a statute expressly declares the phase of the probate proceeding

in which the judgment is rendered to be final and appealable or (b) the judgment

adjudicates a substantial right and disposes of all issues and parties in the phase of

the proceeding in which it is rendered such that it would be properly severable. See

De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006) (quoting Crowson v.

Wakeham, 897 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex. 1995)); Logan v. McDaniel, 21 S.W.3d 683,

688 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied); see also Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank v.

Horsehoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex.1990) (claim is properly

severable if controversy involves more than one cause of action, severed claim could

be proper subject of independently asserted lawsuit; and severed claim is not so

                                         –2–
interwoven with the remaining claims that the claims involve the same facts and

issues.”).

        Because neither circumstance appeared to apply here, we questioned our

jurisdiction over this appeal and directed appellant to file a letter brief addressing

our concern. Appellant complied, but her response addresses the circumstances that

warrant review of the trial court’s orders1 rather than the question of the appealability

of the orders.

        No statute authorizes the appeal of any of the challenged orders, and the orders

do not adjudicate a substantial right or dispose of all claims and parties in the phase

of the proceeding in which they were rendered such that they would be properly

severable. See Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank, 793 S.W.2d at 658. Therefore, we lack

jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal and all pending motions. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a).

                                                       /Bill Pedersen, III//
230967f.p05
                                                       BILL PEDERSEN, III
                                                       JUSTICE

    1
     Additionally, appellant motions for a trial by jury, appointment of counsel, and appointment of special
master.
                                                   –3–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                JUDGMENT

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF                      On Appeal from the Probate Court
RICHARD LEON MEANKINS                       No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
                                            Trial Court Cause No. PR-23-03429-
No. 05-23-00967-CV                          2.
                                            Opinion delivered by Justice
                                            Pedersen, III. Justices Partida-
                                            Kipness and Garcia participating.

    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 21st day of December, 2023.

                                      –4–