MRI Country Bend Investment Fund, L.P. and MRI River Glen Investment Fund, L.P. v. Capitol Painting & Construction, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

MRI Country Bend Investment Fund, L.P. and MRI River Glen Investment Fund, L.P. v. Capitol Painting & Construction, Inc.

DecidedJuly 23, 2009

Docket02-09-00174-CV

StatusPublished

This text of MRI Country Bend Investment Fund, L.P. and MRI River Glen Investment Fund, L.P. v. Capitol Painting & Construction, Inc. (MRI Country Bend Investment Fund, L.P. and MRI River Glen Investment Fund, L.P. v. Capitol Painting & Construction, Inc.) 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

MRI Country Bend Investment Fund, L.P. and MRI River Glen Investment Fund, L.P. v. Capitol Painting & Construction, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-174-CV

MRI COUNTRY BEND INVESTMENT APPELLANTS FUND, L.P. AND MRI RIVER GLEN INVESTMENT FUND, L.P. V.

CAPITOL PAINTING & APPELLEE CONSTRUCTION, INC. ------------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

Appellants MRI Country Bend Investment Fund, L.P. and MRI River Glen

Investment Fund, L.P. attempt to appeal from the trial court’s May 7, 2009,

order denying their motion to dissolve pre-judgment writs of garnishment.

Appellee Capitol Painting & Construction, Inc. moves to dismiss the appeal on

the ground that the May 7 order is not an appealable interlocutory order and

1 … See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. seeks damages as the prevailing party in a frivolous appeal. 2 We dismiss the

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment.3

Interlocutory orders are not appealable unless they fall within the exceptions

provided by the legislature in section 51.014 of the civil practice and remedies

code. 4 None of those exceptions apply here. Therefore, we have no

jurisdiction over the appeal and must dismiss the case. 5 Accordingly, we

dismiss this appeal and appellee’s motion for sanctions.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 23, 2009

2 … See Tex. R. App. P. 45 (stating in part that “[i]f the court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may . . . award each prevailing party just damages”). 3 … See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). 4 … Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon 2008). 5 … Guajardo v. Conwell, 46 S.W.3d 862, 863–64 (Tex. 2001) (dismissal of appeal of interlocutory order); Anderson v. Long, 52 S.W.3d 385, 386 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.) (same).

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