In the Estate of F.J. Leonards, Deceased Appeal from County Court of Chambers County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued July 6, 2021 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00222-CV ——————————— IN THE ESTATE OF F.J. LEONARDS, DECEASED On Appeal from the County Court Chambers County, Texas Trial Court Case No. P03986A MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants W.J. “Billy” Devillier and Paula Winzer, independent coexecutors of the estate of F.J. Leonards, seek to appeal from a pretrial order on will construction issues. Background The underlying litigation involves the construction of a will. On February 24, 2020, the trial court issued rulings in a “Pretrial Order on Will Construction Issues; Exculpatory Clause” and a “Pretrial Order on Will Construction Issues: Remainder Beneficiaries.” On February 26, 2020, the trial court issued a “Pretrial Order Declaring the Devisees and Shares.” The trial court entered an “Order Permitting an Accelerated Appeal” of the February orders on March 5, 2020. Subsequently, on March 12, 2020, the Court issued an Amended Order on Will Construction Issues superseding its prior pretrial orders and permitting accelerated appeal of its amended order. This Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and those interlocutory orders specifically authorized by statute. See Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). The March 12, 2020 amended order is interlocutory and not subject to interlocutory appeal under the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.1 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Landau, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris. 1 This appeal apparently was intended to be filed as part of a petition for permissive appeal filed in this Court as Cause No. 01-20-00223-CV on March 16, 2020. This Court denied appellants’ petition for permissive appeal on October 1, 2020. After being notified that the present appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction, appellants filed a “Joint Response to Court’s Inquiry About Jurisdiction,” requesting that we revisit our prior decision dismissing their permissive appeal in Cause No. 01-20-00223-CV, as part of this appeal. We decline to do so. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
