eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2012-11

Gilda Ferrell Dunson v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC ( 2012 )


Menu:
 
  •                         COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00419-CV
Gilda Ferrell Dunson                   §    From County Court at Law No. 1
§    of Tarrant County (2012-004031-1)
v.
§    November 21, 2012
GMAC Mortgage, LLC                     §    Per Curiam
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that
the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for
want of jurisdiction.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00419-CV
GILDA FERRELL DUNSON                                                  APPELLANT
V.
GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC                                                      APPELLEE
----------
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
This is an attempted appeal from an order signed October 5, 2012,
sustaining the contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigency in the underlying trial
court proceeding. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(a) (directing clerk to docket an action
and issue citation without payment of costs when a party files an affidavit of
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
indigency with an original action). This court lacks jurisdiction to consider this
appeal.
Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction to review a trial court’s rulings
after entry of a judgment finally disposing of the case. Lehmann v. Har-Con
Corp.,
    39 S.W.3d 191
    , 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory appellate jurisdiction is an
exception to this general rule; it enables appellate courts to review a trial court’s
ruling while the case is still pending before the trial court. See Tex. A & M Univ.
Sys. v. Koseoglu,
    233 S.W.3d 835
    , 840–41 (Tex. 2007). As an intermediate
appellate court, we lack jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order unless a
statute specifically authorizes an exception to the general rule that appeals may
only be taken from final judgments. Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. AT & T Corp.,
    24 S.W.3d 334
    , 336 (Tex. 2000).
There is no statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal from an indigency
ruling pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. See Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2012). In contrast, a trial court’s order
sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigency filed in connection with an already
pending appeal is appealable. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j); In re Arroyo,
    988 S.W.2d 737
    , 738–39 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding).
Here, the record contains no final, appealable order.        On October 26,
2012, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over this
case and requested that Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal
file a response by November 5, 2012. Appellant filed a response, but it does not
2
present grounds for continuing the appeal. We therefore dismiss this appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.
DELIVERED: November 21, 2012
3