Le Bin Chen v. the County of Wharton, Texas ( 2023 )

NUMBER 13-22-00500-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
LE BIN CHEN, Appellant,
v.
THE COUNTY OF WHARTON,
TEXAS, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 329th District Court
of Wharton County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva
Appellant, Le Bin Chen, attempted to appeal an order to cancel Sheriff’s deed,
vacate judgment, and reinstate cause of action in cause no. T010476. See TEX. TAX.
CODE ANN. § 33.56. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appears there is
no final, appealable order. On October 20, 2022, and January 31, 2023, the Clerk of this
Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if
it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect
was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of each notice, the appeal would
be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant responded, asserting that the trial court
granted all the relief requested by Wharton County by cancelling the sheriff’s deed,
vacating judgment dated October 12, 2020, reinstating the tax sale cause of action, and
ordering the tax assessor to reinstate taxes on the property, making the order a final,
appealable order.
“[A] judgment issued without a conventional trial is final for purposes of appeal if
and only if either [1] it actually disposes of all claims and parties then before the court,
regardless of its language, or [2] it states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final
judgment as to all claims and all parties.” Farm Bureau Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 455
S.W.3d 161, 163 (Tex. 2015) (quoting Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192-
93 (Tex. 2001)). Here, as required by statute, the order appellant attempts to appeal
reopens claims to be decided again, rather than disposing of them. See TEX. TAX. CODE
ANN. § 33.56(f). Absent an order disposing of all issues and parties, interlocutory appeals
must be authorized by statute. See N.Y. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d
677, 678 (Tex. 1990); San Jacinto Title Servs. of Corpus Christi, LLC. v. Kingsley Props.,
LP, 452 S.W.3d 343, 347 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2013, pet. denied)
(“Appellate courts possess jurisdiction only over final judgments unless a statute
authorizes an interlocutory appeal.”). Appellant has not identified any statute that permits
this interlocutory appeal. See Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d at 678.
2
The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to
correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for
want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for
want of jurisdiction. See id. 42.3(a).
CLARISSA SILVA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
23rd day of March, 2023.
3