in the Estate of Friley S. Davidson, 05-15-00432-CV

Friley S. Davidson died in 2009; his will named his father L. Stacy Davidson and son J. Stacy Davidson (appellant) as co-executors.
In May 2011 Judye Gremm (devisee) moved to remove the co-executors and to seek damages and fees.
The trial court granted Gremm’s partial summary judgment removing the co-executors by order dated February 22, 2013.
Gremm was later appointed Dependent Administrator with Will Annexed and pursued damages at a December 2014 jury trial against appellant.
The jury returned a verdict for Gremm; the trial court entered judgment awarding actual damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and costs. Appellant’s motion for new trial was denied.
Appellant appealed both the February 22, 2013 removal order and the later judgment; the Court of Appeals dismissed the removal appeal as untimely and affirmed the trial-court judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Feb. 22, 2013 partial summary-judgment removing the co-executors was final and appealable	Gremm: the removal order adjudicated a discrete probate phase and was final; appeal should be timely	Davidson: the order was not final because related claims (replacement administrator, damages, fees) remained pending until trial	The removal order was final and appealable; Davidson’s failure to timely appeal waived the challenge (portion of appeal dismissed)
Whether the trial court erred in denying new trial for allegedly incurable jury argument (use of term “stole”)	Gremm: the single word was not incurable and any objection was untimely; record does not show uncurable harm	Davidson: the “stole” remark alleged a crime in a civil trial and was incurable; preserving error in a new-trial motion suffices	Error was not preserved by timely objection; with an incomplete record appellant failed to show the argument was incurable; issue overruled

De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. 2006) (probate orders can be discrete, final, appealable judgments)
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (finality requires adjudication of a substantial right and disposition of issues in that phase)
In re Guardianship of Miller, 299 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (review of finality in probate; need to address controlling intermediate decisions)
Living Ctrs. of Tex. v. Penalver, 256 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. 2008) (error in jury argument ordinarily must be preserved by timely objection; incurable argument standard)
Phillips v. Bramlett, 288 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) (incurable jury argument strikes at core of judicial process; requires showing jury could be improperly swayed)