Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00222-CV
IN THE ESTATE OF Carlos AGUILAR, Deceased
From the County Court at Law No. 2, Webb County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012-PB4-000048-L2
Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 3, 2015
MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
Appellants Vanessa Arce and Eudelia Aguilar filed a notice of appeal from a probate court
order dated February 13, 2015. In response, appellee Clarissa Aguilar filed a motion to dismiss
the appeal for want of jurisdiction, arguing the order from which appellants are attempting to
appeal is not a final, appealable order, but is merely a discovery order that is not appealable. We
grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. De Ayala v. Mackie, 193
S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006) (citing Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.
2001)). A judgment or order is final for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all pending
parties and claims before the court. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. In the probate context, however,
there may be multiple judgments on discrete issues that are final for purposes on appeal. De Ayala,
04-15-00222-CV
193 S.W.3d at 578. However, not every interlocutory order in a probate case is appealable. Id. In
De Ayala, the supreme court held that if there is no express statute declaring the phase of the
probate proceeding to be final and appealable, a probate court order is final and appealable only if
it disposes of all parties or issues in a particular phase of the proceedings. Id. at 579.
Here, the order appellants seek to appeal concerns discovery issues. Because we found no
statute declaring such an order appealable under the Probate Code, it did not appear that the order
disposed of all parties or issues in a particular phase of the proceedings, and we discovered no
other statutory authority permitting an appeal from an interlocutory discovery order, we ordered
appellants to file in this court, on or before May 18, 2015, a written response showing cause why
this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id.; see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2014). We advised appellants that if they failed to
satisfactorily respond within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 42.3(a), (c). Appellants did not file a response.
Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. We order costs assessed against appellants.
PER CURIAM
-2-
in the Estate of Carlos Aguilar
Combined Opinion