Miriam Blank v. Jack Nuszen ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • Opinion issued August 13, 2019
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    For The
    First District of Texas
    ————————————
    NO. 01-18-00379-CV
    ———————————
    MIRIAM BLANK, Appellant
    V.
    JACK NUSZEN, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 246th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Case No. 2008-51454
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant, Miriam Blank, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s order
    denying her motion to vacate a “Default Order in Suit To Modify Parent-Child
    Relationship.” We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
    Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final
    judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 
    39 S.W.3d 191
    , 195 (Tex. 2001); Ne.
    Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 
    400 S.W.2d 893
    , 895 (Tex. 1966). And an appellate
    court also has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order if a
    statute explicitly provides jurisdiction. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 
    340 S.W.3d 444
    ,
    447–48 (Tex. 2011); Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 
    842 S.W.2d 266
    , 272 (Tex. 1992)
    (orig. proceeding). In this case, the trial court’s order denying the motion to vacate
    is neither an appealable interlocutory order nor a final judgment. See 
    Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195
    (“A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all
    pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the
    decree.”); see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (authorizing
    appeals from certain interlocutory orders).
    Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court notified Blank that the appeal was subject
    to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless she caused to be filed a supplemental
    clerk’s record containing documents showing that the trial court had signed a final,
    or otherwise appealable, order or filed a written response showing how this Court
    has jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Blank has not
    responded.
    We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and dismiss as moot all pending
    motions.
    2
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Landau, and Countiss.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-18-00379-CV

Filed Date: 8/13/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/14/2019