Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals for the Second District dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court held that the probate court’s order setting aside approval of a mediated settlement agreement in a divorce proceeding was interlocutory because it did not dispose of a particular phase of the guardianship proceeding. The court also explained that a guardianship does not automatically terminate upon the ward’s death.
Holdings
- The order was interlocutory because it did not dispose of a particular phase of the guardianship proceeding.
- The court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over the appeal and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.
Questions Presented
- Whether the probate court's order setting aside its earlier approval of a mediated settlement agreement was a final and appealable order in the guardianship proceeding.
- Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction over the appeal under the final-judgment rule or a statutory interlocutory-appeal provision.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (3)
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195, 200, 205 (Tex. 2001)(followed)
- In re Guardianship of Jones, 629 S.W.3d 921, 924-25 (Tex. 2021)(followed)
- In re Guardianship of Fairley, 650 S.W.3d 372, 381 (Tex. 2022)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…