Natin Paul v. the Roy F. & Joann Cole Mitte Foundation ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •        TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-22-00397-CV
    Natin Paul, Appellant
    v.
    The Roy F. & Joann Cole Mitte Foundation, Appellee
    FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
    NO. D-1-GN-21-003223, THE HONORABLE JAN SOIFER, JUDGE PRESIDING
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant Natin Paul filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s June 10, 2022
    “Post-Judgment Injunction Under TRAP 24.2(d),” which granted appellee The Roy F. & Joann
    Cole Mitte Foundation’s application for a post-judgment temporary injunction to restrain Paul
    and the other defendants from dissipating or transferring assets to avoid satisfaction of a final
    judgment that has only been superseded in part. 1 Upon initial review, the Clerk of this Court
    sent Paul a letter informing him that this Court appears to lack jurisdiction over the appeal
    because our jurisdiction generally is limited to appeals from final judgments or interlocutory
    orders whose appeal is authorized by statute and that the injunction does not appear to be
    an independently appealable order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.012; Lehmann
    v. Har-Con Corp., 
    39 S.W.3d 191
    , 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 
    967 S.W.2d 352
    , 352-53
    1   The other defendants named in the injunction did not file a notice of appeal.
    (Tex. 1998) (“Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory
    orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction.”); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. &
    Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4) (allowing accelerated appeal from grant of injunction filed under
    Chapter 65); Emeritus Corp. v. Ofczarzak, 
    198 S.W.3d 222
    , 225 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006,
    no pet.) (concluding that proper procedure for appealing Rule 24.2(d) post-judgment injunction
    was filing motion in its pending appeal from final judgment, not filing separate appeal of
    injunction under Section 51.014(a)(4)).       The Clerk requested a response on or before
    September 19, 2022, informing this Court of any basis that exists for jurisdiction.
    Paul has filed a response to our notice and contemporaneously filed in this cause
    number a “Motion for Review of Post-Judgment Temporary Injunction,” but he has not
    demonstrated this Court’s jurisdiction over his separate appeal of the Rule 24.2(d) injunction.
    Rule 24.4 permits a party to seek appellate review of a trial court’s ruling “by motion filed in the
    court of appeals with jurisdiction or potential jurisdiction over the appeal from the judgment in
    the case.” See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(a). Courts have construed this Rule to mean that a motion
    seeking review of a Rule 24.2(d) injunction must be filed in the pending appeal from the final
    judgment, not as a separate appeal. Transcontinental Realty Invs., Inc. v. Orix Cap. Mkts. LLC,
    
    470 S.W.3d 844
    , 848 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.) (concluding that appellate court
    lacked jurisdiction over appeal from trial court’s post-judgment order because post-judgment
    order did not impose obligations on judgment debtor to transfer property to judgment creditor
    and also concluding that proper procedure under Rule 24 is to file motion for review of
    post-judgment order in appeal from trial court’s related final judgment); Emeritus Corp.,
    
    198 S.W.3d at 225
    ; see also Gailey v. Gutierrez, No. 01-12-00491-CV, 
    2013 WL 127557
    , at *1
    (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 10, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (considering
    2
    order striking appellants’ supersedeas bond and concluding, “The rules provide for review of the
    trial court’s ruling on the bond as part of the appeal from the final judgment in the case.”).
    Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over Paul’s separate appeal from the trial
    court’s Rule 24.2(d) injunction, and we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). We
    dismiss as moot his motion for review of post-judgment temporary injunction without prejudice
    to his re-filing the motion in the pending appeal from the final judgment, cause number
    03-21-00502-CV.
    __________________________________________
    Gisela D. Triana, Justice
    Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justice Triana, and Justice Smith
    Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
    Filed: September 29, 2022
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-22-00397-CV

Filed Date: 9/29/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/4/2022