Opinion
01-23-00812-CV
10-23-2024
Staci Semrad v. Tavi Sellers
County Court at Law No. 1 of Fort Bend County Trial court case number: 21-CPR-036193
ORDER
Richard Hightower, Judge
Appellant Staci Semrad has filed a number of notices of appeal though not all clearly indicate which orders she is appealing. In reviewing the notices of appeal, the Court views the following orders or rulings as raised in her notices of appeal:
(1) a September 27, 2023 oral ruling concerning appellant's right to be heard on her pro se arguments, motions or pleadings;
(2) an August 18, 2023 order concerning personal property;
(3) a decision issued on October 25, 2023 postponing the November 13, 2023 hearing until December 6, 2023;
(4) an oral ruling on October 9, 2023 concerning personal property;
(5) an October 23, 2023 ruling denying appellant's October 20, 2023 request to be heard pro se on her First Amended Motion for Reconsideration;
(6) September 27, 2023 order denying appellant's First Amended Motion for Reconsideration;
(7) August 7, 2023 order on Application for Sale of Real Property;
(8) August 18, 2023 order on Personal Property;
(9) October 13, 2023 Order on Personal Property;
(10) December 12, 2023 order on Personal Property;
(11) December 20, 2023 Second Amended Decree Approving Sale of Real Property;
(12) January 3, 2024 order on Amended Motion for Security for Costs Regarding appellant's Opposition to the Sale of Real Property;
(13) September 23, 2024 Order on appellee Tavi Sellers' Motion for Sanctions; and
(14) September 24, 2024 Order to Close Estate.
The Court does not include proposed orders or implicit rulings that Semrad has mentioned in her notices of appeal.
Generally, an appeal may be taken only from final judgments. See Bonsmara Nat'l Beef Co. v. Hart of Tex. Cattle Feeders, LLC, 603 S.W.3d 385, 387 (Tex. 2020). Probate proceedings present an exception to the one-final-judgment rule and in such cases, multiple judgments may be final for purpose of appeal on certain discrete issues. See In re Guardianship of Jones, 629 S.W.3d 921, 924-25 (Tex. 2021). To determine if an order in a probate case is final for purpose of appeal, we apply a two-part test:
If there is an express statute . . . declaring the phase of the probate proceedings to be final and appealable, that statute controls. Otherwise, if there is a proceeding of which the order in question may logically be considered a part, but one or more pleadings also part of that proceeding raise issues or parties not disposed of, then the probate order is interlocutory.Crowson v. Wakeham, 897 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex. 1995).
Appellant has filed a motion for emergency relief staying the trial court's September 23, 2024 order imposing sanctions. Appellant has also filed two supplemental motions seeking a stay of the September 23, 2024 order. Appellant asserts that she will be unable to afford the costs of continued litigation, such as for the appellate record, unless the sanctions order is stayed. In support of her request, appellant cites to Braden v. Downey, 811 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1991) and In re Casey, 589 S.W.3d 850 (Tex. 2019). Both cases involved a requirement by the trial court that the sanctions be paid before the conclusion of the litigation. See Braden, 811 S.W.2d at 924; Casey, 589 S.W.3d at 854-55. In Braden, the Texas Supreme Court held that if the sanctions would threaten a "party's continuation of the litigation" an appeal would afford an adequate remedy only if payment was deferred until final judgment was rendered and the party could supersede the judgment. 811 S.W.2d at 929. Whether Braden applies depends on whether appellant has appealed from a final judgment.
Accordingly, the Court grants appellant's motions for emergency relief and orders the September 23, 2024 order imposing sanctions temporarily stayed until the Court is able to determine if appellant is appealing from a final judgment or if appellant is appealing interlocutory and unappealable orders. The Court requests a response from both parties concerning whether this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal of the orders challenged by appellant in this case. Responses to this order shall be filed within 10 days of the date of this order
It is so ORDERED.