Rodney P. Hunt v. Vicky Stovall

Opinion

Opinion issued August 6, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

Appellee, Vicky Stovall, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We agree and grant the motion to dismiss the appeal.

Texas appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments, and interlocutory orders as specified by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 51.012, 51.014 (West Supp. 2015); Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998). The clerk’s record has not been filed and Hunt did not attach the interlocutory orders. To the extent that the trial court’s orders denied Hunt’s motions to dismiss and for a declaratory finding and his motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, those orders are not final judgments and are not authorized as appealable by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 51.014(a)(1)– (12); Stary, 967 S.W.2d at 352–53.

On March 26, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified the parties that this Court might dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless Hunt timely filed a response demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). On April 24, 2015, Hunt did not file a timely response, but instead filed another notice of appeal, which does not show how this Court has jurisdiction over his appeal. On June 10, 2015, the appellee moved to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

3

We grant appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-15-00264-CV ——————————— RODNEY P. HUNT, Appellant V. VICKY STOVALL, Appellee On Appeal from the 129th Judicial District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2010-68881 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Rodney P. Hunt, attempts to appeal from two separate interlocutory orders of the trial court denying his motions to dismiss and for a declaratory finding and denying his motion to dismiss for want of prosecution.