Estate of John David Harris, DeceasedAppeal from Probate Court No. 1 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-13-00294-CV ESTATE OF JOHN DAVID HARRIS, DECEASED -----------FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 -----------Pro se appellant David Glen Harris attempts to appeal from the August 1, 2013 order denying his first and second motions for appointment of counsel. On August 23, 2013, we notified appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the order did not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). We informed appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before September 3, 2013. Appellant has filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal, and none of the authorities cited in his response support a finding of jurisdiction in this case. See Tex. Prob. Code Ann. § 3(bb) (West Supp. 2012) (defining probate proceeding ); cf. id. § 34A (West 2003) (setting out when an attorney ad litem may be appointed), § 53(b) (c) (West 2003 & Supp. 2012) (same); Crowson v. Wakeham, 897 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex. 1995) (requiring either express statutory permission or disposal of all issues in a particular phase of probate proceedings for interlocutory probate judgment to be appealable); Okumu v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 02-09-00384-CV, 2010 WL 87735, at *1 (Tex. App. Fort Worth Jan. 7, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting that exception to the one final judgment rule exists in probate cases because of the need to review controlling, intermediate decisions before an error can harm later phases of the proceeding). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). PER CURIAM PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. DELIVERED: October 3, 2013 2
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.
