Roberto Antonio Hernandez v. Preston Brown, Valentina Samaniego, Odd Couple Properties, LLC , Crusades Realty Investments and Entrust Capital Funding, LLC ( 2022 )

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ROBERTO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, §
Appellant, § No. 08-22-00178-CV
v. § Appeal from the
PRESTON BROWN, VALENTINA § 327th Judicial District Court
SAMANIEGO, ODD COUPLE
PROPERTIES, LLC, CRUSADES REALTY § of El Paso County, Texas
INVESTMENTS AND ENTRUST CAPITAL
FUNDING, LLC, § (TC# 2022DCV1929)
Appellees. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Roberto Hernandez appeals from the trial court’s September 9, 2022 order
expunging two lis pendens. Generally, an appeal may be taken from a final judgment. See Lehmann
v. Har–Con Corporation, 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE
ANN.§51.014. A judgment is final if it actually disposes of all claims and parties before the court
or states so with unmistakable clarity. Bison Building Materials, Ltd. v. Aldrige, 422 S.W.3d 582,
585 (Tex. 2012).
Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp.
v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001). There is no final judgment in this case, and we find
no statutory authority for an appeal of an interlocutory order expunging lis pendens. See Khraish
v. Hamed, 762 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988, writ denied);
TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN.§ 51.014. To the extent Appellant asserts he is appealing the
dissolution of a temporary injunction, we find this assertion to be unsupported by the record and
Appellant’s notice of appeal. 1 While an order cancelling a lis pendens may be construed as a
temporary injunction under some circumstances, no restricting language amounting to a temporary
injunction appears in the trial court’s order at issue in this case. Id.; see also Hughes v. Houston
Northwest Medical Center, 647 S.W.2d 5, 7–8 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no
writ)(reversing an order cancelling a lis pendens which also enjoined plaintiffs from maintaining
further lis pendens during the action).
CONCLUSION
Appellees’ motion to dismiss interlocutory appeal is granted, and we dismiss this appeal
for want of jurisdiction.
YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice
October 26, 2022
Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
1
Appellant’s response to Appellees’ motion to dismiss this interlocutory appeal contains exhibits and attachments
which we do not consider in our disposition. See TEX.R.APP.P. 34.1 (“The appellate record consists of the clerk’s
record and, if necessary to the appeal, the reporter’s record.”).
2