Opinion
01-24-00238-CV
10-22-2024
Suzanne Martinez Garner v. Maria Eugenia Sainz y Ruanova
Probate Court No 1 of Harris County Trial court case No: 522,495
REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
David M. Gunn, Judge
Appellee Maria Eugenia Sainz y Ruanova filed a petition seeking pre-suit discovery under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 and a motion to compel accountings. Appellant Suzanne Martinez Garner filed a special appearance and motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of standing. On March 7, 2024, the probate court signed three orders: (1) an order denying Garner's special appearance and motion to dismiss; (2) an order granting the Rule 202 petition for pre-suit discovery; and (3) an order granting the motion to compel accountings. Garner filed a notice of appeal from all three orders. In her appellate brief, Garner argues that the probate court erred by issuing the three orders because the court lacks personal jurisdiction over Garner and lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the proceeding.
On October 11, 2024, a second supplemental clerk's record was filed in this Court. This supplemental record includes a Rule 11 Agreement dated August 13, 2024. The Rule 11 Agreement was signed by counsel for the parties and was filed with the probate court. The parties agreed that Garner's retained counsel "will enter a general appearance on [Garner's] behalf in the above-referenced cause." Garner also agreed to provide certain documents, to submit to a deposition, to provide an accounting under the Texas Estates Code, and to work with Sainz y Ruanova's counsel to schedule a mediation. The second supplemental clerk's record also contains an "Entry of Appearance and Designation of Lead Counsel," filed by Garner's counsel on August 23, 2024.
On October 17, 2024, Sainz y Ruanova filed an amended motion to dismiss this appeal. Sainz y Ruanova argues that this appeal has become moot because, among other reasons, Garner has filed a general appearance, produced some documents that the probate court ordered her to produce, and submitted to an oral deposition in September 2024.
"[W]e are obligated to review sua sponte issues affecting jurisdiction." M.O. Dental Lab v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d 671, 673 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam). "Appellate jurisdiction is never presumed. Unless the record affirmatively shows the propriety of appellate jurisdiction, we must dismiss." Jack M. Sanders Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. Roger T. Fridholm Revocable, Living Tr., 434 S.W.3d 236, 240 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (quotations omitted).
Courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to decide moot controversies. See State ex rel. Best v. Harper, 562 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. 2018). A case becomes moot when "there ceases to be a justiciable controversy between the parties," the parties "cease to have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome," or "events make it impossible for the court to grant the relief requested or otherwise affect the parties' rights or interests." Id. (quotations omitted). A case can become moot at any time, including on appeal. Id. We therefore have an obligation "to take into account intervening events that may render a lawsuit moot." Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 166-67 (Tex. 2012).
Moreover, we generally only have appellate jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments, although the Texas Legislature has granted us jurisdiction over appeals from certain interlocutory orders. See Bonsmara Natural Beef Co. v. Hart of Tex. Cattle Feeders, LLC, 603 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. 2020). One such interlocutory order is an order that "grants or denies the special appearance of a defendant under Rule 120a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(7). We have not identified any statutes that authorize interlocutory appeals from orders that grant or deny a plea to the jurisdiction filed by a non-governmental unit, orders granting a Rule 202 petition against an anticipated defendant, or orders granting a motion to compel accountings. See id. § 51.014(a)(8) (allowing appeal from interlocutory order that "grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit as that term is defined in [Civil Practice and Remedies Code] Section 101.001") (emphasis added); In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex. 2008) (stating that pre-suit deposition orders under Rule 202 "when sought from an anticipated defendant" are "ancillary to the subsequent suit" and are not final or appealable); Pollard v. Pollard, 316 S.W.3d 238, 241 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (concluding that because trial court order compelling accounting of estate did not "resolve any independent phase of the proceedings," order was not final and appealable).
We must strictly construe orders authorizing interlocutory appeals, and an interlocutory order that is expressly appealable under section 51.014 "may not be used as a vehicle for carrying other nonappealable interlocutory orders to the appellate court." See Spiritas v. Davidoff, 459 S.W.3d 224, 234 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2015, no pet.) (quotations omitted); Trenz v. Peter Paul Petroleum Co., 388 S.W.3d 796, 806-07 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (refusing to reach subject-matter jurisdiction challenge because complaint fell outside scope of section 51.014(a)(7), which authorizes interlocutory appeals from trial court rulings on personal jurisdiction challenges under Rule 120a).
We request that Garner respond to the dismissal motion, with attention to the following questions:
(1) Whether a justiciable controversy remains between the parties in light of the parties' August 13 Rule 11 Agreement, in which Garner agreed to enter a general appearance, provide certain documents and an accounting to Sainz y Ruanova, and submit to a deposition; and
(2) Whether this Court has appellate jurisdiction to review the portion of Garner's special appearance and motion to dismiss challenging the probate court's subject-matter jurisdiction, the probate court's order granting the Rule 202 petition, and the probate court's order granting the motion to compel accountings.
Garner's response is due 10 days from the date of this order. The supplemental briefing may be in the form of a single-spaced letter; it need not be formatted as a brief or contain items such as a table of authorities.
This case is removed from the October 23, 2024 submission docket.
It is so ORDERED.