Mitzie F. Tarin and Maria Flores v. Eliazer Benavides and Belinda Benavides

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 14, 2011
• Docket: 11-11-00031-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed April 14, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-11-00031-CV __________

MITZIE F. TARIN AND MARIA FLORES, Appellants

V.

ELIAZER BENAVIDES AND BELINDA BENAVIDES, Appellees

On Appeal from the 161st District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. B-126,827

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mitzie F. Tarin and Maria Flores filed a notice of appeal from an order of the trial court denying their motion for new trial. The trial court had previously entered a partial order of dismissal. Upon receiving the clerk’s record, the clerk of this court wrote the parties on March 18, 2011, and informed them that it did not appear that we had jurisdiction in this case because there was no final, appealable order. We requested that appellants respond and show grounds for continuing the appeal. We also notified appellants that the appeal may be dismissed pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 42. See Rule 42.3. Appellants have filed a response stating that they are unable to find any case authority on the question of whether the trial court’s order is appealable but that the “order of November 9 [sic], 2010, is an order of Dismissal with prejudice” and seems to be a final order. The November 29, 2010 order is entitled “PARTIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE”; it is not a final order disposing of all claims and all parties. Moreover, there is no language in the order that would indicate it is a final, appealable order. Absent an order of severance or orders disposing of all claims against all parties to this lawsuit, we have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840-41 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001). Appellants have not established why the order they are challenging is appealable at this time. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

April 14, 2011 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Strange, J.