Alice Spratling v. Cach, LLC
This text of Alice Spratling v. Cach, LLC (Alice Spratling v. Cach, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 30, 2013.
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01392-CV
ALICE SPRATLING, Appellant V. CACH, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-14767
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans In a letter dated November 4, 2013, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal.
Specifically, it appeared there was no final judgment because the trial court had granted
appellant’s motion for new trial. We instructed appellant to file a letter brief addressing our
concern and gave appellee an opportunity to respond. Appellant filed a letter brief but failed to
address the jurisdictional issue. Appellee did not file a response.
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har–Con
Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When a motion for new trial is granted, the case is
reinstated on the trial court’s docket and will stand for trial the same as though the previous
judgment never existed. See Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex.2005). An order granting a new trial deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction over the
appeal. See Yan v. Jiang, 241 S.W.3d 930 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.).
The trial court signed a final default judgment on July 23, 2013. Appellant filed both a
timely motion for new trial and a notice of appeal on August 5, 2013. The trial court signed an
order granting appellant’s motion for new trial on August 16, 2013. Because the trial court
granted appellant’s motion for new trial, there is no final judgment. See Wilkins, 160 S.W.3d at
563; Yan, 241, S.W.3d at 930. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
/David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
131392F.P05
–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ALICE SPRATLING, Appellant On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. No. 05-13-01392-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-14767. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. CACH, LLC, Appellee Justices Moseley and Bridges, participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellee, CACH, LLC, recover its costs of this appeal from appellant, ALICE SPRATLING.
Judgment entered this 30th day of December, 2013.
–3–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Alice Spratling v. Cach, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alice-spratling-v-cach-llc-texapp-2013.