George Danner v. Kathryn Danner

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 8, 2018
Docket09-18-00034-CV
StatusPublished

This text of George Danner v. Kathryn Danner (George Danner v. Kathryn Danner) 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.

Bluebook
George Danner v. Kathryn Danner, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-18-00034-CV ____________________

GEORGE DANNER, Appellant

V.

KATHRYN DANNER, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 418th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 17-03-04143-CV ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

George Danner filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s January 4, 2018

Order Finding Alleged Partition and Exchange Agreement Unenforceable. On

January 30, 2018, the appellee, Kathryn Danner, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal

on the ground that the order was interlocutory and not subject to accelerated appeal.

Appellant did not file a response to the motion to dismiss.

Generally, temporary orders in a divorce case may not be immediately

appealed. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.507 (West 2006). Because the order does

not dispose of all issues before the trial court and it has not been severed, it is an

interlocutory order not subject to immediate appeal. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.,

39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

Appellee requests that we award her “just damages” in an unspecified amount

because the appeal is frivolous. See Tex. R. App. P. 45. “Rule 45 does not mandate

that this court award just damages in every case in which an appeal is frivolous;

rather the decision to award such damages is a matter within this court’s discretion,

which we exercise with prudence and caution after careful deliberation.” Glassman

v. Goodfriend, 347 S.W.3d 772, 782 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet.

denied). We deny Appellee’s request for Rule 45 damages.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice

Submitted on March 7, 2018 Opinion Delivered March 8, 2018

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Glassman v. Goodfriend
347 S.W.3d 772 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
George Danner v. Kathryn Danner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-danner-v-kathryn-danner-texapp-2018.