Opinion
05-22-00048-CV
08-18-2022
IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF L.M., AN INCAPACITATED PERSON
On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR-20-02447-1
Before Justices Myers, Carlyle, and Goldstein
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LANA MYERS, JUSTICE
Appellant Karla Murillo appeals from the trial court's December 22, 2021 order appointing appellee VetGuard USA as permanent guardian of the person over L.M. On March 4, 2022, the probate court vacated the December 22 order and replaced VetGuard USA with Christian F. Clausen as guardian. In light of the March 4 order, we questioned whether the appeal was moot and directed the parties to file letter briefs. The parties complied.
A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005). Appellate courts lack jurisdiction over moot controversies. See Olley v. HCM, LLC, 449 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied).
In her letter brief, Murillo asserts the probate court lacked jurisdiction to render the March 4 order because its plenary power expired thirty days after the December 22 order was signed. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(d). In a probate matter, however, the trial court retains authority to remove a guardian and appoint a successor guardian. See Tex. Est. Code §§ 1203.051 (removal without notice), 1203.052 (removal with notice), § 1203.102 (appointment of successor guardian). Murillo also asserts the trial court erred in rendering the March 4 order. Because Murillo did not appeal this order and the time to do so has passed, we do not address this merits-based argument.
Because the probate court had the authority to vacate the appealed order appointing VetGuard USA as guardian and did so, this appeal is now moot. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
JUDGMENT
Justices Carlyle and Goldstein participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellee VetGuard USA recover its costs of this appeal from appellant Karla Murillo.