Roland D. Fortenberry, Jr., A/K/A Dale Fortenberry, Jr. and Kaye Ann Fortenberry v. Gerald R. Cavanaugh, Jr. and Dianna Cavanaugh

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00127-CV

Roland D. Fortenberry, Jr., a/k/a Dale Fortenberry, Jr. and Kaye Ann Fortenberry, Appellants

v.

Gerald R. Cavanaugh, Jr. and Dianna Cavanaugh, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY, 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 30599, HONORABLE PAUL DAVIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from an order denying a motion to terminate a receivership and

granting the receiver’s application to extend the receivership. Appellees Gerald R. Cavanaugh, Jr.

and Dianna Cavanaugh have filed a supplemental docketing statement with a jurisdictional

statement. See Tex. R. App. P. 32.3. They contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal

because the appeal is from an interlocutory order that is not a final judgment and the notice of appeal

was not filed within 20 days after the interlocutory order was signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b),

28.1; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (judgment generally final for

purposes of appeal “if it disposes of all pending parties and claims”).

Appellants Roland D. Fortenberry, Jr., a/k/a Dale Fortenberry, Jr. and Kaye Ann

Fortenberry have filed a stipulation to appellees’ jurisdictional statement. Appellants agree that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal and request that this Court dismiss the appeal. Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: August 12, 2010