in Re: The Estate of Billy Ray Pickett

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-14-00092-CV
IN RE: THE ESTATE OF BILLY RAY PICKETT, DECEASED
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Hopkins County, Texas
Trial Court No. P11-13427
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joe Bill Boyd appeals from the trial court’s June 16, 2014, “Order Granting Bill of
Review.” By letter of December 11, 2014, we notified Boyd that it appeared we lacked
jurisdiction over this appeal because the order appealed from is neither a final judgment nor an
appealable order. We afforded Boyd ten days to demonstrate proper grounds for our retention of
the appeal. Having received no response, we sua sponte consider our jurisdiction over the
appeal.
Our jurisdiction is constitutional and statutory in nature. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6;
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220 (West Supp. 2014). This Court has jurisdiction to decide
appeals from final judgments and from interlocutory orders as permitted by the Texas
Legislature. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Ruiz v. Ruiz, 946
S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, no writ) (per curiam). The trial court’s June 16
order granting a bill of review is not a final judgment; rather, it is an interlocutory order. See
Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705, 705 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam); Ponce v. Post, No. 6-
14-00010-CV, 2014 WL 1356684, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 14, 2014, no pet.) (mem.
op.). “A bill of review which sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of all the issues of
the case on the merits is interlocutory in nature and not a final judgment appealable to the court
of appeals or the supreme court.” Tesoro, 796 S.W.2d at 705. The judgment from which the
appeal is taken in this case is of the same nature as the one addressed in Tesoro. It grants a bill
of review and orders a new trial. Accordingly, the judgment does not dispose of all issues in the
case, is interlocutory, and is not a final, appealable judgment.
2
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: January 15, 2015
Date Decided: January 16, 2015
3