Opinion issued August 13, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-26-00740-CV
ANDREW WOOD GEORGE, Appellant
V.
ASHLEY WOOD GEORGE, JR. AND ALYSON HADJU, Appellees
On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 203232
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant moves to extend the deadline for filing his notice of appeal. Because
we conclude the challenged order is not appealable, we lack jurisdiction over the
appeal. We therefore deny the motion as futile and dismiss the appeal.
Appellant challenges an order issued by the probate court on June 17, 2026.
The order grants in part and denies in part appellant’s motion to transfer and
consolidate related proceedings. Specifically, the probate court transferred
appellant's separate Freestone County lawsuit to the probate court as a proceeding
related to the estate but declined to transfer a pending Freestone County partition
suit.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 17, 2026, within the thirty-day
deadline applicable to appeals from final judgments but outside the deadline
applicable to interlocutory appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Appellant also filed a
motion seeking an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See id. 26.3.
Appellees respond that any extension would be futile because the order is not
appealable.
Absent a timely notice of appeal from a final judgment or an appealable
interlocutory order, or a valid extension of the applicable deadline, this Court lacks
jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1, 26.1, 26.3. Generally, appeals may be taken
only from final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195
(Tex. 2001).
The June 17 order is not final. “A judgment is final for purposes of appeal ‘if
and only if either it actually disposes of all claims and parties then before the court,
regardless of its language, or it states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final
2
judgment as to all claims and all parties.’” Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge,
422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012) (quoting Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d
191, 192–93 (Tex. 2001)). The June 17 order neither disposes of all parties and
claims before the court nor states with unmistakable clarity that it is final. The
probate proceeding remains pending and the transferred Freestone County lawsuit
remains pending.
The June 17 order is also not an appealable interlocutory order. In probate
proceedings, an interlocutory order on a discrete issue is appealable only if either (1)
a statute expressly declares that phase of the proceeding final and appealable, or (2)
the order disposes of all parties or issues for which that particular phase of the
proceeding was brought. See De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006).
Neither Chapter 34 – nor any other statute the Court was able to find – declares an
order granting or denying a Chapter 34 transfer appealable. Courts considering
similar orders have consistently concluded that they are not appealable. See, e.g.,
Estate of Rosborough, No. 05-25-00486-CV, 2026 WL 565844, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Dallas Feb. 27, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal from probate court
order transferring venue under Estates Code section 34.001 for lack of jurisdiction);
In re Estate of Aguilar, 435 S.W.3d 831, 833 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no
pet.) (same); Grounds v. Lett, 718 S.W.2d 38, 39 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, no writ)
3
(holding probate court orders concerning transfer and jurisdiction were interlocutory
and unappealable).
Nor does the order dispose of all parties or issues in a discrete phase of the
probate proceeding. The order merely determines where related litigation will
proceed. Further proceedings are necessary before any substantive rights are
adjudicated. Accordingly, the order is not appealable.
Because the June 17, 2026 order is not appealable, we lack jurisdiction over
this appeal. Although appellant has demonstrated circumstances that would
otherwise support an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, granting such relief
would be futile because no appeal lies from the challenged order. See Rhodes v.
Aikens, No. 05-19-00047-CV, 2019 WL 1146713, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar.
13, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Accordingly, appellant's motion for extension of time is denied, and the appeal
is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
PER CURIAM.
Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Morgan.
4