Nikki Norvell v. Bryan Bruton and the Office of the Attorney General

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00090-CV
NIKKI NORVELL APPELLANT
V.
BRYAN BRUTON AND THE APPELLEES
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL
----------
FROM THE 360TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Nikki Norvell attempts to appeal from the trial court’s February 7,
2012 order granting bill of review in favor of Bryan Bruton. In a letter dated
April 20, 2012, we notified Appellant of our concern that we might not have
jurisdiction over this appeal because the order she was attempting to appeal from
did not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. We
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
stated that unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a
response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before April 30, 2012,
the appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.
42.3(a), 44.3. Appellant filed a response in which she agreed that this court does
not have jurisdiction.
The general rule, with a few exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken
only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195
(Tex. 2001). An order granting a bill of review that sets aside a prior judgment
without also disposing of all issues in the case on the merits is interlocutory in
nature and is not a final judgment appealable to the court of appeals or to the
Texas Supreme Court. Kiefer v. Touris, 197 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2006);
Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705, 705 (Tex. 1990). Because the trial
court’s February 7, 2012 order does not dispose of all issues and parties in the
case, it is not an appealable interlocutory order. Kiefer, 197 S.W.3d at 302;
Tesoro, 796 S.W.2d at 705. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.
DELIVERED: May 24, 2012
2