In the Guardianship of Richard Leon Meankins v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

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–