Joe Harris D/B/A Mobile Car Doctors v. Nuvell Financial Services Corporation, for Nuvell Credit Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 6, 2002
• Docket: 14-02-00449-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Opinion filed June 6, 2002

Dismissed and Opinion filed June 6, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00449-CV

JOE HARRIS d/b/a MOBILE CAR DOCTORS, Appellant

V.

NUVELL FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, FOR NUVELL CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 280th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 01-64634

M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N

Nuvell Financial Services filed suit against appellant, Joe Harris d/b/a Mobile Car Doctors, claiming that appellant presently had possession of the vehicle without Nuvell=s permission, and claiming that Nuvell had a prior perfected lien and security interest in the vehicle.  Nuvell sought judgment against appellant for possession of the vehicle and requested issuance of a writ of sequestration to sequester this vehicle.

On January 3, 2002, the trial court signed an order issuing a writ of sequestration.  On February 22, 2002, the trial court signed an order denying appellant=s motion to dissolve the writ of sequestration.  Appellant=s notice of appeal was filed on April 22, 2002.

The general rule is that an appeal lies only from a final judgment.  Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. 2000).  An order to preserve property under the control of the court, or to dissolve such an order is interlocutory and is not appealable.  Monroe v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 561 S.W.2d 12, 13 (Tex. Civ. App.BWaco 1978, no writ).  Unless a rule or statute authorizes an appeal from an interlocutory order, there is no right of appeal.  Qwest, 24 S.W.3d at 336.  We have located no statute or rule that provides for appeal from an interlocutory writ of sequestration and the denial of the motion to dissolve the writ.

On May 13, 2002, notification was transmitted to all parties of the Court=s intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  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 6, 2002.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Seymore, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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