Garrett, DeCarlos Montray v. Ramada Franchise Systems Inc., and Ramada Plaza Hotel Near the Galleria

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 13, 2002
• Docket: 14-02-00483-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Opinion filed June 13, 2002

Dismissed and Opinion filed June 13, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00483-CV

DECARLOS MONTRAY GARRETT, Appellant

V.

RAMADA FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC. AND RAMADA PLAZA HOTEL NEAR THE GALLERIA, Appellees

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 01-54071

M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from a partial default judgment signed March 22, 2002.  In October of 2001, Heidi and Richard Aucoin filed suit against Ramada Franchise Systems, Inc. and Ramada Plaza Hotel Near the Galleria, appellees.  The Aucoins were guests at the Ramada Plaza Hotel Near the Galleria.  While Mrs. Aucoin was in the parking lot of the hotel, she and her infant child were kidnaped by two armed assailants, Beerien DeWayne Crouch and DeCarlos Montray Garrett.  The Aucoins alleged appellees were negligent in failing to provide adequate security.  After they were sued, appellees filed a third-party action against Crouch and Garrett, the assailants, seeking contribution and indemnity. 

Appellees moved for a partial default judgment against Crouch and Garrett.  The trial court found Crouch and Garrett were properly served, but did not file an answer or otherwise appeal.  Accordingly, on March 22, 2002, the trial court granted a partial default judgment in favor of appellees on their claims for contribution and indemnity.  This judgment did not dispose of the claims by the Aucoins against appellees, nor does the record show the trial court granted a severance as to the partial default judgment.  Garrett, nevertheless, filed a pro se notice of appeal on April 19, 2002. 

An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review an interlocutory judgment or order unless a statute specifically authorizes an exception to the general, which is that appeal may only be taken from final judgments.  Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. 2000); Jani-King of Memphis, Inc. v. Yates, 965 S.W.2d 665, 666 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).  It is fundamental error for an appellate court to assume jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal when it is not expressly authorized by statute.  Yates, 965 S.W.2d at 666 (citing New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex. 1990)). 

On May 23, 2002, notification was transmitted to all parties of the Court=s intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction because there is no final judgment from which to appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).  Appellant filed no response. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed June 13, 2002.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Fowler, and Edelman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).