Full Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-26-00514-CV IN THE ESTATE OF Ruth Kruger PALMER, Deceased From the Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014-PC-2061 Honorable Oscar J. Kazen, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 23, 2026 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On June 29, 2026, appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging “the order by Probate Court One Bexar Co. Texas [that] was signed June 5th 2026.” The only order in the clerk’s record that was signed on June 5, 2026 is an Order Granting Security of Costs under section 53.052 of the Texas Estates Code. See TEX. EST. CODE § 53.052. “While failure to comply with a security for costs order could result in the dismissal of a party’s claims under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 143, if the court does not enforce the order, it becomes procedurally inconsequential.” In re Est. of Wilson, — S.W.3d —, No. 04-24-00191-CV, 2025 WL 2458629, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 27, 2025, no pet.). This court recently held that if the probate court “does not dismiss claims or take other enforcement actions” for failure 04-26-00514-CV to comply with a section 53.052 security for costs order, “the order does not affect the outcome of the case and is not ripe for appellate review.” See id. The record before this court does not show that the probate court has taken any adverse action against appellant for his failure to comply, if any, with the June 5, 2026 Order Granting Security of Costs. Accordingly, it appears that the order is not yet ripe for appellate review. See id. Additionally, while “[p]robate proceedings are an exception to the ‘one final judgment rule,’” it is well-established that “[n]ot every interlocutory order in a probate case is appealable[.]” De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006). An interlocutory probate order is appealable if: (1) “a statute declares a particular phase of probate proceedings to be final and appealable” or (2) “if [the order] disposes of all issues in the particular phase of the proceeding for which it was brought.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Munson, No. 01-25-00434-CV, 2025 WL 2956235, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 21, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.). In this case, there is no statute that makes the June 5, 2026 Order Granting Security of Costs immediately appealable, and the order does not dispose of all issues in the particular phase of the proceeding for which it was brought. See id.; see also De Ayala, 193 S.W.3d at 579. For these reasons, on August 11, 2026, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In our order, we cautioned appellant that if he did not satisfactorily respond to this order by August 26, 2026, this appeal would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On August 24, 2026, appellant filed a response to our order. Appellant’s response did not address the jurisdictional issues we identified. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM -2-