Carolyn Sue Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
This text of Carolyn Sue Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Carolyn Sue Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) 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 May 13, 2024
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-01229-CV
CAROLYN SUE THOMAS, Appellant V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee
On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-08648
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Nowell, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Kennedy This appeal challenges three interlocutory orders: two orders granting
appellee continuances and an order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss appellee’s
suit against her as frivolous. Interlocutory orders, however, can only be appealed if
authorized by statute or rule, see Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266,
272 (Tex. 1992), and no statute or rule authorizes an appeal of these orders.
In response to our request for jurisdictional briefing, appellant filed a letter
asserting the appeal is permitted under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(d).1 See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d). Section
51.014(d), however, requires, among other conditions, that the trial court grant
permission to appeal, see id., and the trial court here has not granted permission.
Accordingly, lacking jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.
42.3(a).
/Nancy Kennedy/ NANCY KENNEDY JUSTICE 231229F.P05
1 Appellant also cites to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1 and Texas Government Code section 22.220. Appellant, however, confuses jurisdiction over an appeal–statutorily conferred by section 22.220 and invoked upon the filing of a notice of appeal as provided by rule 25.1(b)–with subject matter jurisdiction–a court’s authority to decide a case. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220; TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b); Town of Highland Park v. McCullers, 646 S.W.3d 578, 583(Tex. App.—Dallas 2021, no pet.); Dallas Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Funds Recovery, Inc., 887 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, writ denied). –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
CAROLYN SUE THOMAS, On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-08648. No. 05-23-01229-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, Justices Molberg and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Nowell participating. Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
Judgment entered May 13, 2024.
–3–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Carolyn Sue Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carolyn-sue-thomas-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-texapp-2024.