Mark Edwin Burns v. Corinna Marquez Burns

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 25, 2009
• Docket: 14-09-00385-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 25, 2009

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 25, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-09-00385-CV

MARK EDWIN BURNS, Appellant

V.

CORINNA MARQUEZ BURNS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 247th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-04758

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from an order signed March 19, 2009, sustaining a contest to appellant=s affidavit of inability to pay costs in his pending suit for divorce.  Appellant also seeks to challenge the denial of his request to be present for the hearing on the contest.  These orders are interlocutory and not subject to appeal until after a final judgment is entered.  See  Aguilar v. Texas La Fiesta Auto Sales LLC, No. 01‑08‑00653‑CV, 2009 WL 1562838, at *1 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] Jun. 4, 2009, no pet. h.) (mem, op.) (dismissing appeal of interlocutory order sustaining challenge to affidavit of inability to pay costs);  Kilsby v. Mid Century Ins. Co. of Tex., No. 14‑07‑00981‑CV, 2008 WL 889428, at *1 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] Apr. 3, 2008, no pet.) (memo.op.) (same).

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments.  Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).  Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute.  Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).  There are no statutory provisions granting the right to appeal the interlocutory order at issue in this case.  We may review a challenge to the denial of indigency only when it is made as part of a pending appeal from a final judgment or other appealable order.  See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1.

On May 21, 2009, notification was transmitted to the parties of this Court=s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating this Court=s jurisdiction on or before June 8, 2009.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).  Appellant filed no response.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Frost.