Angela Bass v. Mercedes Benz Financial Services USA LLC

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: February 3, 2026
• Docket: 01-25-01054-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued February 3, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-01054-CV ——————————— ANGELA BASS, Appellant V. MERCEDES BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 165th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2025-66164

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Angela Bass, filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal the trial

court’s October 20, 2025 order granting a writ of sequestration regarding certain

property at issue in the underlying litigation. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final

judgments unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal. CMH Homes v. Perez,

340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); see N.Y. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez,

799 S.W.2d 677, 678–79 (Tex. 1990) (“In the absence of a special statute making an

interlocutory order appealable, a judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in

the case . . . to be final and appealable.”).

The trial court’s October 20, 2025 order granting a writ of sequestration is

neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order. See Rexford v.

Holliday, 807 S.W.2d 356, 357 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ)

(“Sequestration is controlled by chapter 62 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies

Code. Generally, an order to preserve property under the control of the court, or to

dissolve such an order, is interlocutory and is not appealable.”); Morgan v. Univ.

Fed. Credit Union, No. 08-16-00342-CV, 2017 WL 2889064 at *1 (Tex. App.—El

Paso July 7, 2017, no pet.) (“Finding that an order granting a writ of sequestration is

not an appealable order, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction.”); see also Anderson v. G & S Auto of Fort Worth VI, LLC, No. 02-25-

00063-CV, 2025 WL 3039141, at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 30, 2025, no pet.)

(“[W]rits of sequestration are not appealable.”). Moreover, even if a final judgment

were entered in the underlying case, any issues regarding the writ of sequestration

would be rendered moot. See Anderson, 2025 WL 3039141, at *4 (“Indeed, because

2 a writ of sequestration’s purpose is to preserve and protect property during the

pendency of litigation, once a final judgment is entered, any issues regarding the writ

itself become moot.”).

On December 31, 2025, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that this

appeal was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a

written response within 10 days of the notice demonstrating that this Court has

jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a) (allowing involuntary

dismissal of appeal after notice). Appellant did not respond.

On January 8, 2026, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed with our Court

demonstrating that the trial court voided its sequestration order on December 29,

2025. Thus, even if the sequestration order were subject to appeal, our Court would

still lack jurisdiction because any issues regarding the order have been rendered

moot. See Guillen v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 494 S.W.3d 861, 864–65 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (“[A]ppellate courts lack jurisdiction to decide

moot controversies and render advisory opinions.”) (quotation omitted).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a), (c), 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Johnson.