Bianca Rose Fox v. Cypress at Stone Oak

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 04-25-00791-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00791-CV

Bianca Rose FOX, Appellant

v.

CYPRESS AT STONE OAK, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023-CV-01033 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 14, 2026

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

This is an attempted appeal from the trial court’s order denying a post-appeal motion to

stay enforcement of a judgment.

On May 5, 2023, the trial rendered judgment against Bianca Fox (“appellant”) in the

amount of $5000.00 plus interest. On November 27, 2024, we issued an opinion affirming the

judgment. See Fox v. Cypress at Stone Oak, No. 04-23-00526-CV, 2024 WL 4901922, at *1 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio Nov. 27, 2024, no pet.). 04-25-00791-CV

Almost a year later, on October 31, 2025, appellant filed a motion asking the trial court to

stay enforcement of the $5000.00 judgment. The trial court denied the motion to stay enforcement.

On November 12, 2025, appellant filed a document seeking appellate review of the trial court’s

order denying the motion to stay enforcement. We construe this document as a notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and certain interlocutory orders

made appealable by statute. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011); Lehmann

v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The order denying appellant’s motion to stay

enforcement is not an appealable interlocutory order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §

51.014(a)(1)–(18) (designating appealable interlocutory orders); Davis v. Merriman, Nos. 04-13-

00518-CV, 04-13-00875-CV, 2015 WL 1004357, at *5 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, pet.

denied) (noting orders concerning enforcement of prior judgments are generally not appealable

because they are not final judgments); Walter v. Marathon Oil Corp., 422 S.W.3d 848, 855 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 4, 2014, no pet.) (same). We ordered appellant to show cause in

writing why we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant filed a response, but it does not show

that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. 1 Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

1 Appellant asserts we have jurisdiction under Rule 24.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. However, Rule 24.4 authorizes appellate review of orders involving the suspension of enforcement judgments pending appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24; In re Obeginski, No. 09-25-00480-CV, 2025 WL 3520514, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Dec. 4, 2025, orig. proceeding [mand. filed]) (explaining Rule 24 provides “[t]he appropriate procedure to utilize when a judgment debtor seeks to avoid execution of a final judgment pending the resolution of an appeal”). Appellant’s appeal from the $5,000.00 judgment was resolved more than a year ago and is no longer pending.

-2-