Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nicasio and Benita Guerra formed a family limited partnership, NB Guerra, LTD, and later created Guerra Cattle Company with their son Roel Guerra. After Nicasio died, his will established a residuary trust naming Benita as trustee and Roel as successor trustee. Nicasio’s estate closed in 2000. Benita died in 2021, and inventories filed in her pending probate proceeding listed interests in the partnership and cattle company.
Roel’s sister Maria sued him as successor trustee to compel a trust accounting. The district court ordered an accounting and awarded attorney’s fees, then later entered a temporary injunction and appointed a person to carry out the winding up of NB Guerra, LTD. Roel argued that the accounting and fee orders were final judgments that ended the district court’s plenary power and that the county court handling Benita’s probate had exclusive jurisdiction over the disputed assets.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the accounting, attorney-fee, and winding-up orders were not final because they lacked finality language, did not dispose of all claims, and, in the winding-up order’s case, contemplated further judicial action. The district court therefore retained plenary power over the proceeding. The court added that only the temporary-injunction order was statutorily appealable and that, because Roel did not provide the necessary reporter’s record, it presumed the evidence supported that order and its findings.
The court also rejected Roel’s jurisdictional arguments. The county court at law lacked jurisdiction over the trust arising from Nicasio’s estate because that probate proceeding had closed, and the trust was a nonprobate asset with respect to Benita’s estate. The district court, meanwhile, had jurisdiction over the trust proceeding, receivership, and partnership-winding-up matters.
Key Takeaways
- Orders compelling a trust accounting, awarding fees, or directing preliminary winding-up steps are not final when they do not dispose of all claims and contemplate further proceedings.
- An appellant challenging a temporary injunction must provide a sufficient reporter’s record; without it, the appellate court presumes the evidence supports the trial court’s order and findings.
- A closed probate proceeding does not retain jurisdiction over a related trust, and a nonprobate trust asset does not fall within a later decedent’s probate estate merely because estate inventories list related business interests.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that finality turns on an order’s language and effect, not merely on whether it grants significant relief. Interim trust and partnership orders ordinarily do not terminate a trial court’s plenary authority when claims remain unresolved or further court action is required.
It also highlights two practical appellate points: jurisdictional challenges must account for the distinction between probate and nonprobate assets, and a temporary-injunction appeal may fail when the appellant does not furnish the record needed to evaluate the evidence.