Wally Yammine v. Warren Fonville, PLLC - Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Texas Court of Appeals

Filed March 5th, 2026

Detected March 7th, 2026

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District, has dismissed the appeal in Wally Yammine v. Warren Fonville, PLLC, for want of jurisdiction. The court found that the appellant, acting as executor, lacked the capacity to represent the estate in the appeal.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District, has dismissed the appeal in Wally Yammine, as Executor of the Estate of Simona Yammine Barron, Deceased v. Warren Fonville, PLLC. The dismissal is for want of jurisdiction, stemming from the appellant's lack of legal capacity to represent the estate in the appeal, as determined by the trial court following an evidentiary hearing. This decision follows a prior appeal where jurisdiction was questioned and the case was abated for further proceedings.

This ruling means the appeal is terminated. The appellant, Wally Yammine, must now comply with the trial court's original judgment. There are no further actions required by regulated entities based on this specific court opinion, as it pertains to a procedural matter in a specific case rather than a new regulatory requirement.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 5, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Wally Yammine, as of the Estate of Simona Yammine Barron v. Warren Fonville, PLLC

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)

Citations: None known
Docket Number: 11-26-00022-CV
Nature of Suit: Miscellaneous/other civil
Disposition: Dismissed-Want of Jurisdiction
Opinion
Authorities (3)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Disposition

Dismissed-Want of Jurisdiction

Lead Opinion

Opinion filed March 5, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

No. 11-26-00022-CV

WALLY YAMMINE, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
SIMONA YAMMINE BARRON, DECEASED Appellant
V.
WARREN FONVILLE, PLLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court
Palo Pinto County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. C06229

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This attempted appeal relates to the trial court’s order containing its findings
of fact and conclusions of law provided to this court, at our direction, during the
abatement of a prior appeal. See Yammine v. Warren Fonville, PLLC, No. 11-25-
00071-CV, 2025 WL 3275030, at *2 (Tex. App.—Eastland Nov. 25. 2025, no pet.)
(mem. op.). We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
As detailed in our opinion in the prior appeal, Appellant filed a pro se notice
of appeal from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Appellee, “as [the] Executor of
the Estate of Simona Yammine Barron.” Id. at *1. We questioned his ability to
proceed in the appeal in that capacity and requested responses on the issue. Id. at
*1–2. For the trial court to develop the record as to the issue and to protect the
parties’ rights, however, we ultimately abated the case for the trial court to hold an
evidentiary hearing, allow Yammine to be heard, and allow the parties to present
evidence on the issue regarding his capacity to proceed in the appeal. Id. at *2.
The trial court held the evidentiary hearing and signed an order detailing its
findings of fact and conclusions of law, including that (1) the estate has more than
one creditor, (2) Appellant is not the sole beneficiary of the estate, and (3) Appellant
cannot represent the estate in the appeal of the case “under any circumstances.” Id.;
see Suday v. Suday, 716 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex. 2025). After the appeal was
reinstated, we allowed Appellant an additional opportunity to respond or hire an
attorney, but he did not. Yammine, 2025 WL 3275030, at *2. Instead, he filed a pro
se motion to stay in this court for the trial court’s determination of a motion for new
trial, which he had filed in that court following the abatement proceedings and the
reinstatement of the appeal. Id. Thus, we granted Appellee’s motions to dismiss
and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Id. at *3. Appellant did not file a
motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1.
Appellant has now attempted to appeal the trial court’s order containing its
findings of fact and conclusions of law provided to us during our abatement. When
this appeal was docketed, the clerk of this court wrote Appellant and informed him
that the order being appealed was not an appealable order. We requested Appellant
to respond and show grounds to continue this appeal, and we notified him that the
appeal was subject to dismissal. Appellant has not filed a response.
Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from
final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840–41 (Tex.
2007); Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An order
providing us with the evidence, information, findings, and conclusions that we
2
required to determine our jurisdiction, which the trial court provided at our direction,
does not constitute an appealable order over which we have jurisdiction in a separate
appeal after our decision in the prior appeal has been issued. See Umoja v. State,
965 S.W.2d 3, 12 n.7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, no pet.) (per curiam) (op. on
reh’g) (dismissing attempted appeal of trial court’s findings in an abatement hearing
for want of jurisdiction).
Appellant does not have the ability to proceed pro se in a representative
capacity for the estate, and the trial court’s order containing its findings and
conclusions on the capacity issue during our abatement of the prior appeal is not an
appealable order. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).