New Birth Missionary Baptist Church of Houston, Inc. and Ella M. Nunn v. Reverend Dwight E. Matthews

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 27, 2003
• Docket: 14-03-00136-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 27, 2003

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 27, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00136-CV

NEW BIRTH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH OF HOUSTON AND ELLA M. NUNN, Appellants

V.

REVEREND DWIGHT E. MATTHEWS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 02-61577

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

On December 16, 2002, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by appellee, Reverend Dwight E. Matthews.  On December 26, 2002, counsel for appellants filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the order signed December 16, 2002.  That appeal was assigned to this Court and given appellate cause number 14-02-01365-CV.  The appeal in cause number 14-02-01365-CV is still pending before this Court.  On January 23, 2003, counsel for appellants filed a second notice of appeal.  In that notice, counsel stated appellants desired to appeal the trial court=s orders dated January 8, 2003, which disposed of a motion to show authority and a motion for non-suit.  That appeal was assigned to this Court and given appellate cause number 14-03-00136-CV. 

On February 10, 2003, after reviewing the record in cause number 14-03-00136-CV, this Court sent a letter to the parties stating that on March 4, 2003, the Court would consider dismissal of the appeal on its own motion for want of jurisdiction because the orders which appellants stated they were attempting to appeal, i.e., the orders signed January 8, 2003, concerning the motion to show authority and motion for non-suit, are not appealable.  On February 19, 2003, appellants filed a AVerified Motion to Retain.@  Attached to the motion is a copy of the trial court=s order of December 16, 2002.  In the motion, appellants state they are appealing the order of December 16, 2002, not the January orders identified in the notice of appeal filed January 23, 2003.  However, as we noted above, the appeal from the December 16, 2002,  order is currently pending before this Court in cause number 14-02-01365-CV. 

We first note that the second notice of appeal, which was filed January 23, 2003, does not state that appellants are appealing the December 16, 2002, order; rather, it specifically states that appellants desire to appeal from the orders signed January 8, 2003.  Rule 25.1(d) requires a notice of appeal to state the date of the judgment or order appealed from.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(d).  As we stated in our dismissal letter of February 10, 2003, those orders are not appealable.  If appellants did, in fact, intend to appeal the December 16, 2002, order in their second notice of appeal, we fail to see the need to do so C an appeal from that order is already pending in cause number 14-02-01365-CV.  Appellants are not entitled to two separate appeals from the same order.  Accordingly, we deny the motion to retain and dismiss the appeal in cause number 14-03-00136-CV. 

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed February 27, 2003.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Hudson, and Frost.