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

Opinion filed November 25, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
___________

No. 11-25-00071-CV
___________

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

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 31, 2025, Wally Yammine, “as Executor of the Estate of Simona
Yammine Barron,” filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment in
favor of Appellee, Warren Fonville, PLLC. On May 2, Fonville filed a motion to
strike Yammine’s notice of appeal and to dismiss the appeal because Yammine is
not an attorney and is “acting pro se in a representative capacity on behalf of the
Estate.” After requesting responses and considering filings by both parties, we
ultimately abated the case for an evidentiary hearing on Yammine’s ability to
proceed in a representative capacity in this appeal. We grant Fonville’s motion and
dismiss the appeal.
We first allowed Yammine an opportunity to respond to Fonville’s motion to
dismiss, requesting that he file a response by May 27. On May 28, Yammine instead
filed a motion for extension of time to file his response “to give him time to hire
counsel and respond to the motion in this matter.” Although Fonville responded and
asked that we “enforce the current deadlines” given Yammine’s “refus[al] to follow”
the appellate rules, we granted Yammine’s request for an extension and issued an
order the same day.
The order highlighted the capacity issue for the parties so that Yammine had
the appropriate opportunity to respond and/or hire an attorney to proceed on behalf
of the estate if he did not have the capacity to pursue this appeal as its representative.
See TEX. R. CIV. P. 7; Steele v. McDonald, 202 S.W.3d 926, 928 (Tex. App.—Waco
2006, no pet.) (collecting cases); see Swain v. Dobbs, 692 S.W.3d 720, 728 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2023, no pet.). Specifically, and given the lack of
documentation and responses in support of his ability to proceed, our order
(1) questioned Yammine’s ability to proceed in a representative capacity and
(2) requested that the estate hire an attorney by June 27 and have that attorney file
an amended notice of appeal to correct the defect in his pro se notice of appeal. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(g). We stated that the “failure to timely do so [would] result in
the granting of Fonville’s motion and the dismissal of this appeal.” See TEX. R.
APP. P. 42.3. Yammine did not file a response or hire an attorney by the June 27
deadline.
However, on June 27, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in Suday,
wherein it reaffirmed its holding in Shaffer and additionally held that “an executor
may represent the estate pro se when [he] is also the sole beneficiary of the estate.”
Suday v. Suday, 716 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex. 2025); see Ex parte Shaffer, 649 S.W.2d
2
300, 302 (Tex. 1983) (In a case where the independent executor was sued by the
widow for breach of fiduciary duty in that capacity, the executor could proceed pro
se because his own interests were at stake.). The court clarified that its holding in
Suday was “narrow” and “expressly reserve[d] for a future case—whether and to
what extent the executor of a single-beneficiary estate that [has] creditors may
represent the estate’s interests pro se.” Suday, 716 S.W.3d at 589 n.2, 590 (emphasis
omitted).
We notified the parties by letter that the supreme court had issued Suday, and
we requested a response from both parties regarding whether Yammine may
represent himself in this appeal under any circumstances. Fonville filed a
supplemental motion to dismiss and a response to our request, stating that
(1) Yammine has judicially admitted that he must have an attorney, (2) Fonville’s
claims were brought against Yammine in his representative capacity, not in his
individual capacity, (3) the estate involves claims by multiple creditors, (4) the
creditors and Yammine are beneficiaries, and (5) Suday is distinguishable. After we
granted Yammine another extension of time to file a response, he responded that
“Suday mandates that Appellant be permitted to proceed pro se in this case” because
he is the sole beneficiary and because the estate does not involve “other creditors”
other than Fonville, who is “the only and disputed creditor.”
In an effort to protect the rights of both parties, we abated the appeal for the
trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the capacity issue. We directed the trial
court to develop evidence and determine whether, in light of the supreme court’s
decisions in Suday and Shaffer, (1) Fonville’s claims were brought against Yammine
in his capacity as the executor of Simona’s estate or in his individual capacity;
(2) Simona’s estate has more than one creditor; (3) Yammine is the sole beneficiary
of the estate; and (4) Yammine may represent himself in this appeal under any
circumstances. To allow the parties to properly present evidence and arguments at
3
this hearing, we directed the trial court and the trial court clerk’s office to presume
that Yammine could proceed pro se during the evidentiary hearing. We further
permitted the trial court may make additional findings in aid of resolving this issue.
The trial court held the evidentiary hearing on October 7. 1 Yammine did not
appear after receiving “due notice of [the] proceeding.” Among other documents
and evidence, Fonville presented his original petition with a sworn affidavit, the final
judgment, the application to probate Simona’s will by Yammine’s attorney in 2022,
Simona’s will, and an answer by a judgment creditor. The trial court admitted the
exhibits into evidence for purposes of this hearing.
As to the first question, the trial court found that Fonville’s claims were
brought against Yammine in his capacity as the executor of Simona’s estate. As to
the second and third questions, the trial court found that Simona’s estate “does, in
fact, have more than one creditor” and that “Yammine is not the sole beneficiary of
the estate.” For the remaining question, the trial court made “a ruling that based on
the evidence before the Court, [Yammine] may not represent himself in this appeal
under any circumstance as the executor of the estate” and that Yammine “is not a
party as an individual in any of the proceedings before this Court.” The trial court
made the additional finding that Yammine “appears to have not actually hired
counsel as he represented to the Court of Appeals he was intending to do.” The trial
court issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the
above.
We conclude that Yammine does not have the ability to proceed pro se in a
representative capacity in this appeal. Simona’s estate has more than one creditor,
and it appears that Yammine’s rights are not the only ones at stake. See Walker v.

1
The Honorable Don Chrestman was assigned to the case below on June 11, after the Honorable
Shane Long, the presiding judge of the County Court of Palo Pinto County, voluntarily recused himself
from the trial court proceedings.
4
BoRain Capital Fund-V, LLC, No. 02-25-00291-CV, 2025 WL 2989770, at *2 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth Oct. 23, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.); In re Linwood, No. 05-25-
00983-CV, 2025 WL 2262400, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 7, 2025, orig.
proceeding); see also Suday, 716 S.W.3d at 588–90. When we reinstated the appeal
on October 29, we informed the parties that the appeal was subject to dismissal.
Rather than responding or hiring an attorney, Yammine filed a motion to stay the
appeal “pending resolution of the Motion for New Trial, filed in the trial court on
November 6th, 2025.”
We grant Fonville’s motions to dismiss and dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See Walker, 2025 WL 2989770, at *2. Any other pending motions,
including Yammine’s motion to stay the appeal, are dismissed as moot.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

November 25, 2025
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

5