Court Opinion

ID: 9892862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 06:09:15.479205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:48.306396
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 17, 2023

                                   S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00430-CV

           IN THE ESTATE OF PAMELA E. BANKS, DECEASED

              On Appeal from the Collin County Probate Court 1
                           Collin County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. PB1-0352-2022

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Pedersen, III
                         Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
      Appellant Samuel C. Gardner appeals from what he calls the trial court’s “de

facto denial” of his motion to dismiss pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation

Act (TCPA). See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.003 (permitting filing

of motion to dismiss), § 27.008(a) (permitting appeal where trial court does not

rule on motion within certain period of time). Appellee, the Gary Sinese

Foundation, has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the appeal for want of

jurisdiction and damages for frivolous appeal. For the reasons that follow, we

grant the motion to the extent that we dismiss the appeal.
                                   Background

      In 2022, Gardner filed an application for probate of will and issuance of

letters testamentary. The Foundation filed an objection to Gardner’s application.

In response, Gardner filed, on July 15, 2022, a TCPA motion seeking dismissal of

the Foundation’s objection to his appointment. The motion was set for hearing on

September 12, 2022. Gardner cancelled the meeting after the parties agreed to

mediate. On March 15, 2023, the Foundation filed an application for appointment

of a temporary administrator of the Estate pending the contest to the letters

testamentary.    Two days later, Gardner filed a combined contest to the

Foundation’s application and renewed TCPA motion to dismiss. The trial court

conducted a hearing on the Foundation’s application on March 21, 2023. The

TCPA motion filed on July 15 was set for a hearing on May 3, 2023. At that

hearing the Foundation objected to the TCPA hearing due to its untimeliness. On

May 4, 2023, the trial court signed a “Declaration of Court Concerning Motion to

Dismiss” stating as follows:

      This Cause having been scheduled for a hearing on a Motion to
      Dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, and the court
      having determined prior to conducting the hearing that the Court was
      without a statutory basis to grant relief on such Motion because the
      time permitted by the TCPA for a hearing has expired;

      It is the Declaration of the Court that the Court is without a Statutory
      Basis to Conduct a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss.

Gardner filed a notice of accelerated appeal the following day, citing section

27.008(a). See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.008(a) (providing that
                                        –2–
when trial court does not rule on motion within thirty days of hearing, motion is

deemed denied by operation of law and party may appeal).

                                    The Law

      A party may appeal from an interlocutory order denying a TCPA motion

either by signed order or by operation of law. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

ANN. §§ 27.008(a); 51.014(a)(12). Statutes authorizing appeals from interlocutory

orders are strictly construed. See Spiritas v. Davidoff, 459 S.W.3d 224, 234 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.). Where a trial court does not sign an order denying a

TCPA motion and the motion is not denied by operation of law because there was

no hearing, there is no order subject to an interlocutory appeal. See Braun v.

Gordon, No. 05-17-00176-CV, 2017 WL 4250235, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept.

26, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

                                    Discussion

      In its motion to dismiss, the Foundation asserts this Court lacks jurisdiction

because the trial court’s refusal to conduct a hearing on Gardner’s TCPA motion

does not constitute a denial necessary to confer jurisdiction over an interlocutory

appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(12) (denial of TCPA

subject to an interlocutory appeal). We agree. This is the same factual situation

presented in Braun. Like Gardner, the appellant in Braun sought to appeal the

“denial” of her TCPA motion that was never heard by the trial court. See Braun,

2017 WL 4250235, at *1. Because the TCPA motion was neither denied by

                                       –3–
written order no by operation of law due to the lack of a hearing, we dismissed the

appeal for want jurisdiction. See id. at *2; see also Walker v. Pegasus Eventing,

LLC, No. 05-19-00252-CV, 2020 WL 3248476, at *5 (Tex. App. June 16, 2020,

pet. denied) (mem. op.) (if the trial court does not hold a hearing at all, then we

lack jurisdiction over an appeal related to the motion).

      In his response to the motion to dismiss, Gardner asserts the trial court

lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Foundation and asks that we determine

that issue. Gardner also asserts we have jurisdiction over this appeal because of his

“renewed TCPA motion” filed as part of his response to the Foundation’s

application for an appointment of a temporary administrator. Neither argument,

however, addresses the above-noted controlling authority from this Court.

                                    Conclusion

      Because Gardner’s TCPA motion has not been denied by signed order or by

operation of law because the trial court did not conduct a hearing on the motion,

we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the Foundation’s

motion and dismiss the appeal. We deny the Foundation’s request for damages for

frivolous appeal.

                                               /Robert D. Burns, III/
                                               ROBERT D. BURNS, III
                                               CHIEF JUSTICE
230430F.P05

                                         –4–
                                 S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                JUDGMENT

IN THE ESTATE OF PAMELA E.                 On Appeal from the Collin County
BANKS, DECEASED                            Probate Court 1, Collin County, Texas
                                           Trial Court Cause No. PB1-0352-
No. 05-23-00430-CV                         2022.
                                           Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
                                           Burns. Justices Molberg and Pedersen,
                                           III participating.

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

       It is ORDERED that appellee The Gary Sinese Foundation recover its costs
of this appeal from appellant Samuel C. Gardner.

Judgment entered October 17, 2023

                                     –5–