Jill Kathryn Arno Peterson v. Donald Jonathan Peterson

Opinion issued March 28, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-01022-CV
———————————
JILL KATHRYN ARNO PETERSON, Appellant
V.
DONALD JONATHAN PETERSON, Appellee
On Appeal from the 280th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2018-43305
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jill Kathryn Arno Peterson attempts to appeal from an order
granting an amended motion to vacate a protective order for a new trial. We dismiss.
The protective order signed August 27, 2018 was a final, appealable
judgment. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 81.009. The trial court issued an order granting a
new trial on November 9, 2018, which was within its plenary power. See TEX. R.
CIV. P. 329b(e) (trial court has plenary power to grant new trial until 30 days after
all timely-filed post-judgment motions are overruled by written and signed order or
by operation of law 75 days after judgment was signed).
The court notified appellant that it might dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because orders granting new trials are interlocutory and not appealable.
See Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993). Only two
circumstances could support appeal of an order granting a new trial: “(1) when the
trial court’s order was wholly void; and (2) when the trial court erroneously
concluded that the jury’s answers to special issues were irreconcilably in conflict.”
In re Wyatt Field Serv. Co., 454 S.W.3d 145, 149 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2014, orig. proceeding). Appellant responded that the order was appealable because
it was void; however, appellant has failed to establish that the trial court’s order is
void.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Any pending
motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Kelly, and Hightower.
2