Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-26-00437-CV ___________________________ IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF DALTON HOMER COBB, an Incapacitated Person On Appeal from Probate Court No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023-GD00079-1 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants Kaleb and Kylie Cobb attempt to appeal from what they claim is a final judgment in the underlying guardianship proceeding—an “Order Approving Account for Final Settlement” (the Order).1 But the Order is not a final judgment. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments,2 and if an order is issued without a conventional trial on the merits, the order constitutes a final judgment only if it (1) “clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties” or (2) “actually disposes of every pending claim and party.” In re Guardianship of Jones, 629 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. 2021); Cobb, 2025 WL 3683991, at *1. But in a guardianship proceeding, there can be more than one final judgment, so an order qualifies as a final judgment if it disposes of all claims and parties “in the phase of the proceeding for which it was brought.” Jones, 629 S.W.3d at 924–25; Cobb, 2025 WL 3683991, at *1. 1 Appellants seek to challenge two interlocutory orders, and they claim such orders were “made final in the [trial c]ourt’s Order Approving Account for Final Settlement.” [Formatting altered.] See In re Guardianship of Cobb, No. 02-25-00571-CV, 2025 WL 3683991, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 18, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing Appellants’ previous attempted appeal from an interlocutory order). 2 Although immediate interlocutory appeals are available in certain statutorily approved circumstances, none of those circumstances apply here, and Appellants do not claim that they do. See generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a); see also supra note 1. 2 The Order here does not dispose of all claims and parties—in the current phase of the proceeding or otherwise. To the contrary, the Order expressly recognizes that the guardianship proceeding is ongoing, stating that, “upon the delivery of [certain] property . . . , and the filing of proper receipts therefor, the Guardian shall apply to th[e trial c]ourt for an Order of Discharge and for a declaration that this Estate is closed.” See In re Guardianship of Fairley, 650 S.W.3d 372, 381 (Tex. 2022) (noting that, by statute, a guardianship proceeding “ends when ‘the guardianship is settled and closed,’” so a “probate court’s jurisdiction continues until the court settles and closes the guardianship and discharges the guardian” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Cobb, 2025 WL 3683991, at *1 (similar, quoting Fairley). Because the face of the Order reflects that it is not a final judgment, we notified Appellants that we could dismiss their appeal for want of jurisdiction unless, within ten days, they showed grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. More than ten days have passed since our notice, and Appellants have not responded. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Cobb, 2025 WL 3683991, at *1–2. /s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice Delivered: August 13, 2026 3