J. Hugh Wheatfall died in 2018, and on February 28, 2019 his son Isaiah applied for letters of administration alleging Hugh died without a valid will, while about a week later his granddaughter Theresa DeBose applied to probate a 2009 will and for letters testamentary.¹ The trial court heard both applications together, and on September 5, 2019, before it ruled, Isaiah filed a "Contest to the Application for Probate of a Will not Produced in Court" alleging the will was not properly executed, that Hugh lacked sound mind and that the will was made under undue influence.²

On September 16, 2019, without a further hearing, the trial court denied Wheatfall's application, admitted the will, issued letters testamentary to DeBose, found the will validly executed and Hugh of sound mind, and overruled "[a]ll objections to the probate of the Will asserted through September 4, 2019".¹ Wheatfall later sought a trial setting on his contest, and at a March 2022 status conference the judge said he believed the contest was still alive, but after briefing the court on November 3, 2022 granted DeBose's objection and dismissed it.² A divided First Court of Appeals (Houston) dismissed Wheatfall's appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding the 2019 order final and his appeal untimely, and the dissenting justice would have reversed.³ The Supreme Court granted review and on February 13, 2026, without oral argument, reversed, and remanded.⁴

Petition for review from the First Court of Appeals (Houston); disposed of without oral argument under Tex. R. App. P. 59.1 in a per curiam opinion issued February 13, 2026.⁵

• Wheatfall:¹ whether the court of appeals erred in finding that Estates Code section 256.101(a) limits a contestant to a single opportunity to contest a will, whether its majority departs from precedent on when a probate order is final and appealable, and whether it erroneously implied terms contradicting the order's express provisions.
• DeBose:² whether the September 16, 2019 order was final and appealable and whether Wheatfall's issues on section 256.101 present anything for the Court to decide.

A probate order is appealable under a special test: an express statute controls, and otherwise an order is interlocutory if it is part of a proceeding in which pleadings raise issues or parties not disposed of, and an order is final if it actually disposes of every party and issue in a phase or clearly states that it does.¹

Whether the September 16, 2019 order was final.

Isaiah Wheatfall (Petitioner): The order was not final as to his will contest because by its plain language it overruled only objections asserted through September 4, 2019, and his contest was filed on September 5, and the court of appeals' reading of section 256.101 as giving a contestant one opportunity and its implied terms depart from De Ayala v. Mackie.¹

Theresa DeBose (Respondent): By finding the will valid the trial court necessarily ruled that it was properly executed, that Hugh had capacity and that he was not unduly influenced, so the order was final and appealable and Wheatfall's notice of appeal came about three years late.²

Wheatfall argued that the court of appeals' majority created a split of authority on when probate orders become final and appealable, and DeBose responded that no split exists and the Court should dismiss for want of jurisdiction.¹

None noted

Holding

The trial court's September 16, 2019 order admitting the will was not a final, appealable judgment on Wheatfall's will-contest objections, there was no final order on them until the November 3, 2022 dismissal, and his appeal of that order was timely.¹

Reasoning

The Court did not decide whether the September 5 filing was part of the same phase as the competing applications, assuming it was, because the order did not dispose of all issues in that phase, acknowledging a regrettable lack of clarity about what constitutes a "particular phase" of a probate proceeding.² The order's overruling only of objections asserted through September 4 indicated that later objections remained pending and so was equivocal as to finality, and the record confirmed that it did not dispose of the September 5 objections, since Wheatfall filed them as a will contest the day after the cutoff and the trial judge later said he believed the contest was still alive.³ The order was internally inconsistent because it found Hugh of sound mind while leaving pending a claim that he was not, and the Court will not imply finality where the record and the order's express language call it into question.⁴

Disposition

Petition granted, court of appeals' judgment dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction reversed, and the case remanded to that court to address the merits of the appeal.⁵

Vote Breakdown

Per Curiam Opinion

Joined by Blacklock, C.J., and Bland, Busby, Devine, Hawkins, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.

The Court applied the probate-finality test and the general rule that a judgment is final only if it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or clearly and unequivocally says it does.¹

Per curiam opinion.¹