Robert Michael Philipps v. Cynthia Jane Jackson and Wade C. Jackson ( 2021 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-21-00027-CV
ROBERT MICHAEL PHILIPPS, APPELLANT
V.
CYNTHIA JANE JACKSON AND WADE JACKSON, APPELLEES
On Appeal from the 181st District Court
Randall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 78,523-B, Honorable Titiana Frausto, Presiding
February 24, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Appellant Robert Michael Philipps, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s
order expunging a lis pendens. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Generally, appellate courts only have jurisdiction over final judgments. Lehmann
v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for purposes of
appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims. Id. We have jurisdiction to consider
immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate
jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998). An order cancelling
a lis pendens is neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory order made immediately
appealable by statute. Margetis v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 553 S.W.3d 643, 644–
45 (Tex. App.—Waco 2018, no pet.); Smith v. Schwartz, No. 02-15-00146-CV, 2015 Tex.
App. LEXIS 5944, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 11, 2015, no pet.) (per curiam)
(mem. op.) (stating that “we find no statutory authority for an appeal of an interlocutory
order expunging notices of lis pendens.”); Casmir v. Frontera Energy, LLC, No. 14-12-
00023-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 1225, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 16,
2012, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing an appeal from an order expunging a
lis pendens).
Questioning whether we had jurisdiction over the appeal, we notified Philipps of
our concern and directed him to explain in writing why jurisdiction exists. His reply was
due no later than February 11, 2021. To date, Philipps has not replied or otherwise
attempted to explain how we have jurisdiction over this appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Per Curiam