Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00567-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG RENE ANGEL HERNANDEZ AND NOE LAURO HERNANDEZ, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BENITO HERNANDEZ, DECEASED, Appellants, v. RICARDO HERNANDEZ AND JOEL HERNANDEZ, Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE PROBATE COURT NO. 2 OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Silva and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina Appellants Rene Angel Hernandez and Noe Lauro Hernandez, Independent Executor of the Estate of Benito Hernandez, Deceased, have filed a petition for permissive interlocutory appeal seeking to challenge the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees Ricardo Hernandez and Joel Hernandez. Generally, an order that does not dispose of all claims and all parties is interlocutory and is not an appealable order. Sabre Travel Int’l, Ltd. v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, 567 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. 2019). To be entitled to a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order that is not otherwise appealable, the requesting party must establish to the trial court that (1) the order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion” and (2) allowing an immediate appeal “may advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(d); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3 (setting out the requirements for permissive appeals in civil cases). If the trial court grants permission to appeal, we may accept the appeal if the appeal is warranted under the foregoing criteria. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(f); see Sabre, 567 S.W.3d at 732 (“Texas courts of appeals have discretion to accept or deny permissive interlocutory appeals certified under section 351.014(d) . . . .”). The trial court must identify the “controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion” and “state why an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of litigation.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 168; Archibald v. El Paso Orthopedic Surgery Grp., P.A., No. 08-22-00091-CV, 2023 WL 2214184, at *6 (Tex. App.—El Paso Feb. 24, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). Here, the trial court’s order states that the sole “issue of whether Defendants Ricardo Hernanez and Joel Hernandez violated the no contest clause contained in the Last Will and Testament of Benito Hernandez” is the “Trigger Issue.” The trial court’s order states that it 2 “did not rule on any other grounds contained in” the parties’ summary judgment motions. The trial court found that: (1) As a matter of law, Defendants Ricardo Hernandez and Joel Hernandez did not violate the no contest clause contained in the Last Will and Testament of Benito Hernandez. (2) The Trigger Issue is a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for differences of opinion. (3) An immediate appeal from this Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation . . . any trial of this case depends on the resolution of the Trigger issue, which is a question of law for the Court and not a proper issue for the jury . . . . The Trigger issue determines whether the Court must reach other defenses such as Defendants Ricardo Hernandez and Joel Hernandez’s good father and just cause defense. However, the trial court’s order does not state why an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of litigation when appellees have pending counterclaims and cross-claims against appellants. “[W]hen other issues are left pending in the litigation, ultimate termination of the litigation is not advanced by allowing immediate appeal of an otherwise interlocutory order.” Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. MB2 Dental Sols., LLC, 698 S.W.3d 355, 359 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2024, pet. dism’d). Furthermore, the trial court did not rule on any other grounds contained in the parties’ motions for summary judgment. Thus, “[w]ere we to grant the petition, regardless of how we might resolve the appeal and the legal question at issue, neither party would seek judgment without further litigation.” Id. Having reviewed appellants’ petition and the record documents attached thereto, this Court is of the opinion that appellants have not shown entitlement to a permissive interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for permissive interlocutory appeal, 3 and we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. JAIME TIJERINA Chief Justice Delivered and filed on the 20th day of August, 2026. 4