In the Estate of Richard Leon Meankins v. the State of Texas
This text of In the Estate of Richard Leon Meankins v. the State of Texas (In the Estate of Richard Leon Meankins v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-24-00366-CV
IN THE ESTATE OF RICHARD LEON MEANKINS, DECEASED
From the County Court at Law Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. P-19707
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se appellant, Deloris Phillips, attempts to appeal from an order of the trial
court appointing an attorney ad litem to represent the unknown heirs of the decedent in
the underlying estate proceeding. Because we find that the order is not a final judgment
for purposes of appeal or an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
Background
On November 29, 2023, Phillips filed an application for letters of administration
concerning the estate of Richard Leon Meankins in Dallas County, Texas. Phillips filed a
motion to transfer venue to Navarro County, Texas on June 28, 2024, which was granted on the same date. On November 19, 2024, respondent David Joseph Meankins filed into
the underlying case an application for declaration of heirship along with a motion to
appoint an attorney ad litem to represent the decedent’s unknown heirs. The trial court
signed an order appointing an attorney ad litem to represent the unknown heirs on
November 20, 2024. See TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 202.009 (“The court shall appoint an
attorney ad litem in a proceeding to declare heirship to represent the interests of heirs
whose names or locations are unknown”). It is from this order that Phillips attempts to
appeal.
Analysis
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments or interlocutory orders
that are authorized by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014; Lehmann
v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). However, because probate proceedings
generally consist of multiple discreet phases, and decisions made in later phases may be
based on decisions made in earlier phases, special rules have been developed with regard
to finality and appealability in probate proceedings. See De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d
575, 578 (Tex. 2006). A judgment in a probate proceeding is deemed final even when other
issues remain pending if either (1) a statute expressly declares the phase of the probate
proceeding in which the judgment is rendered to be final and appealable or (2) the
judgment adjudicates a substantial right and disposes of all issues and parties in the
phase of the proceeding in which it is rendered. See id. (quoting Crowson v. Wakeham, 897
In The Estate of Richard Leon Meankins, Deceased Page 2 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex. 1995)); Logan v. McDaniel, 21 S.W.3d 683, 688 (Tex. App.—Austin
2000, pet. denied).
Recognizing that neither circumstance appeared to apply here, by letter dated
December 6, 2024, we informed Phillips that this appeal may be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction unless she filed a response within ten days showing grounds for continuing
the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Phillips responded with a request for an extension
of time to file her response.1
No statute expressly authorizes the appeal of this challenged order. Further, the
order appointing an attorney ad litem to represent the interests of the unknown heirs
does not adjudicate a substantial right or dispose of all claims and parties in the phase of
the proceeding in which it was rendered. See Est. of Harris, No. 02-17-00108-CV, 2017 Tex.
App. LEXIS 5487, 2017 WL 2590574, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 15, 2017, pet.
denied) (mem. op.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction an appeal from the trial court’s
order overruling the appellant’s objections to the appointment of an attorney ad litem to
represent unknown heirs). The “complete heirship judgment” – the judgment naming
the heirs of the decedent and their respective shares and interests – is expressly declared
by statute to be final and appealable. See TEX. EST. CODE ANN. §§ 202.201, 202.202;
Crowson, 897 S.W.2d at 783; Est. of Harris, No. 02-18-00414-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 1563,
1Phillips also filed a motion to suspend and stay the underlying proceeding and previously filed a motion to suspend all duties, authorities, and powers of the ad litem.
In The Estate of Richard Leon Meankins, Deceased Page 3 2019 WL 983772, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 28, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.). An
order appointing an attorney ad litem to represent the unknown heirs of a decedent is a
component of the determination-of-heirs phase of the proceeding. See TEX. EST. CODE
ANN. at §§ 202.001-202.206. Stated differently, the trial court’s order appointing an
attorney ad litem to represent the interests of the unknown heirs is “more like a prelude
than a finale” and “sets the stage” for the resolution of the determination of heirship. See
De Ayala, 193 S.W.3d at 578-79.
We find that the order from which Phillips attempts to appeal is a non-appealable,
interlocutory order. As such, we lack jurisdiction of the appeal, and we dismiss this
appeal and all pending motions.
STEVE SMITH Justice
Before Chief Justice Johnson Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 16, 2025 [CV06]
In The Estate of Richard Leon Meankins, Deceased Page 4
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Estate of Richard Leon Meankins v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-estate-of-richard-leon-meankins-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.