In the Estate of Alice C. Hartong v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 2, 2025
• Docket: 04-25-00219-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00219-CV

In the Estate of Alice C. HARTONG, Deceased

From the Probate Court No. 2, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2001-PC-1800 Honorable Barbie Scharf-Zeldes, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 2, 2025

MOTION FOR PERMISSIVE APPEAL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Alice K. Turner has filed a motion for permissive appeal from an interlocutory order

denying her plea to the jurisdiction in the underlying probate matter.

To be entitled to a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order that is not otherwise

appealable, the requesting party must establish that the trial court, by written order, granted

permission to appeal and that: (1) the order to be appealed involves a controlling question of law

on which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and (2) an immediate appeal

from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. See TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(d); TEX. R. CIV. P. 168 (“[A] trial court may permit an appeal

from an interlocutory order that is not otherwise appealable, as provided by statute. Permission 04-25-00219-CV

must be stated in the order to be appealed.”); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(e) (detailing contents

of petition for permissive appeal).

Here, the challenged order does not grant Turner permission to seek a permissive appeal.

See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(d); TEX. R. CIV. P. 168. Additionally, the challenged

order does not identify a controlling question of law on which there is a substantial ground for

disagreement, and it does not state why an immediate appeal may materially advance the

ultimate termination of the litigation. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(d); TEX. R.

CIV. P. 168. On May 22, 2025, we issued an order notifying Turner that unless an amended order

complying with Section 51.014(d) and Rule 168 was filed in this court by June 20, 2025, her

motion for permissive appeal would be denied. No amended order has been filed. Because

Turner has failed to satisfy the prerequisites for a permissive appeal, her motion for permissive

appeal is denied and this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE § 51.014(d); TEX. R. CIV. P. 168; see also Durairaj v. Durairaj, No. 04-19-00271-CV,

2019 WL 3937275, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 21, 2019, no pet.) (denying petition for

permissive appeal and dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction).

-2-