DISMISS; and Opinion Filed February 20, 2015.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01302-CV
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF MARTHA T. LATTIMORE,
AN ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2014-1-166P
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers
In a letter dated October 21, 2014, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal
because there did not appear to be an appealable order. We instructed appellant Morris Ratcliff
to file a jurisdictional brief addressing our concern and gave appellees an opportunity to respond.
Appellant and appellee Stormy Cansler filed briefs addressing the jurisdictional issue.
Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-
Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is one that disposes of all
pending parties and claims. See id. Probate orders are an exception to the one final judgment
rule. See De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006). However, not every
interlocutory order in a probate case is appealable. See id. Factors to be considered include
whether the order adjudicated a substantial right and whether the order disposed of all issues in
that phase of the proceeding for which it was brought. Id. A final order in a guardianship
proceeding is appealable. See TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 1022.001(c) (West 2014).
Appellant filed an application for temporary and permanent guardianship of the person
and estate of Martha T. Lattimore. Cansler, Lattimore’s daughter, filed a contest to appellant’s
application and also asked the court to appoint her, or a neutral third party, as the temporary
guardian of the person and estate of Lattimore should the trial court determine that the proposed
ward was in need of a guardian. 1 The trial court signed an order dismissing only appellant’s
application for lack of standing. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from this order.
In his jurisdictional brief, appellant contends “the trial court impliedly denied any
application for temporary guardianship, and handily resolved the issue by disqualifying [him]
and attempted to preclude appellate review.” He contends the “guardianship case” as opposed to
just his application should have been dismissed. Appellant further argues that, because no one
else seeks a guardianship, “this wrong can never be rectified because this proceeding where no
one seeks a guardianship will [n]ever be the subject of a judgment. There is no case or
controversy in the court below.” We disagree.
This Court has addressed the issue of whether an order dismissing an applicant from a
guardianship is appealable. See In re Miller, 299 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.)
(en banc). In Miller, the proposed ward’s wife and daughter filed competing applications for
guardianship. Each filed a motion in limine contending the other did not have standing. The
probate court determined that neither the wife nor the daughter had standing and issued an order
granting the motions in limine. A few days later, the probate court signed an order finding that
the proposed ward had sufficient mental capacity and did not require a guardian. Rather than
dismissing the cause, however, the court abated it. See id. at 183–84. This Court concluded that
the probate court’s ruling on the wife’s and daughter’s motions in limine left one issue to be
1
A second contest was filed by Lattimore’s son, Victor Lattimore Jr., and her grandsons, J.V. Lattimore III, and Mark Lattimore, but they
did not seek affirmative relief. Northwest Holdings LLC intervened asking the court to order a sale of an apartment complex Lattimore owns, but
did not seek or oppose any form of guardianship for Lattimore.
–2–
determined—whether a guardianship was necessary—and the probate court’s order stating a
guardianship was not necessary “fully resolved that issue.” Id. at 184. As a result, we concluded
that the order was final and appealable even though the court abated, rather than dismissed, the
cause. Id. at 186–87.
Unlike Miller, this case does not have a final determination regarding Lattimore’s mental
capacity. In its order dismissing appellant’s application, the trial court found, among other
things, that “the evidentiary record developed thus far does not establish by clear and convincing
evidence whether the proposed ward is partially incapacitated, and, if so, what her limitations, if
any, might be, or, even if she is shown to be partially incapacitated, whether the appointment of a
guardian would be in her best interests.” The trial court stated in its order “that this Order
disposed of all claims of Applicant [appellant], but is otherwise interlocutory.” Additionally, on
the same date that the court dismissed appellant’s application and made findings of fact and
conclusions of law in support of its order, it also rendered an Order of Referral to Mediation,
ordering “[a]ll remaining parties” to mediation. In that order the court stated, “Following
mediation, the parties shall advise the court in writing concerning each issue which remains
contested, and shall provide the court with a proposed discovery schedule as well as such other
matters as may aid in the disposition of the action.”
Based on the record before us, Cansler’s application for a temporary guardianship of the
person and estate of Lattimore is still pending, and we conclude that the order dismissing
appellant’s application is not an appealable order. Because a final order in the guardianship
proceeding has not been rendered, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal of the dismissal of
–3–
appellant’s application. See TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 1022.001(c); De Ayala, 193 S.W.3d at 578.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUSTICE
141302F.P05
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE MATTER OF THE On Appeal from the County Court at Law
GUARDIANSHIP OF MARTHA T. No. 1, Grayson County, Texas.
LATTIMORE, AN ALLEGED Trial Court Cause No. 2014-1-166P.
INCAPACITATED PERSON Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
Justices Francis and Whitehill, participating.
No. 05-14-01302-CV
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellees Stormy Cansler, Martha T. Lattimore, Victor Lattimore,
J.V. Lattimore, Mark Lattimore, and NorthWest Holdings LLC recover their costs of this appeal
from appellant Morris Ratcliff.
Judgment entered this 20th day of February, 2015.
–5–