### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 004 -CV

Laur a D ow , A ppe lla nt

v. New Century Mor tgage C om pany , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN40197 5 , HO NORAB LE SCO TT H. JENK INS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
O nJ a nu ar

y 3 , 2 0 0 7 , La

ur a D o w ’ s “ M o t i o nf

o r Ap p e a l ” w a s f

i l e d i nt h i s C o urt
. In it, Dow “petitions this court to grant appea l a nd a defa ult judg ement.” Dow claims that New Ce ntury Mortg age C o m p an y

filed a la

wsuit ag ainst her on June 23, 2004, but withdrew its lawsuit on Au g us t 11 , 20 04
. Do w a sse rt s that sh e ne ve r re c e ive d no tic e of the no ns uit and fi le d a c ounte rc la im ag ainst New Centur

y on J anuar y 20, 2005, seekingdam a g e s a n d to r e mo v e a ll e g e dly

unconstitutional lie ns on he r p ro pe rt

y . D owa lle g e s th a t N e w C e ntur y did no t r e sp on d, so sh e mov e d f or a de fa ult judgme nt, but “wa s notified by the Travis County

Clerk’s Of

fice that [she] had bee n dismiss ed fr om the lawsuit by

Plaintiff.” Dow a sks this C ourt to “aw ard [her] re turn of [her] property ,” re move any lie ns a g a ins t he r p ro pe rt

y , a nd g ra nt h e r a de fa ult jud g me nt. On Marc h 12, 2007, this C o urt sent the district cler k a letter notifying he r that the cler k’s re cord in this case was overdue and reque sting the cler k’s record or

an explanation about why i tco u l d n o tb e p ro v i d edb y

M ar ch 2 2
. On Ap ri l 9 , 2 0 0 7 , th e c o urt cl erk re s p o n d ed , wr i t i n g,2

Appellant’s notice o f appeal, filed July 3, 2006, makes no mention of a ny one particula r Orde r to be a

ppeale d. In addition, no order on D efendant’s motion for defa ult judgment, filed June 26, 2006, i s o n fi l e in this court. For this reason, a cler k’s re cord c annot be c ompleted on this case. A ttached is a copy of t his court’s do c ke t sh e e t.
The doc ket shee t indicates that Dow’ s “Motion for A p p ea l ” wa s filed in the trial cour t on J u ly 3 , 2 0 0 6
. We a

r e u n a b le to e xp la in w h y s ix mo n th s e la p s e d b e tw e e n th e f

il in g o f Dow’ s

“ Mo tio n f or Ap pe a l” in t

he tr ia l c ourt

and its fi lin g in t

his Court . H ow e ve r, we ne e d n ot r e so lve thi s issue beca

use Dow ha s not shown that there is any final orde r fr om the trial co u rt that she is e nti tle d to a

pp e a l. On April 17, 2007, this Court s en t a letter to Dow informingher that it does not appea r that a f inal judgme nt exi sts in her ca se and r equestingt h at s h e demonstrate tha t a final judgme nt exi sts by

April 30, 2007, to preve nt the dismiss al of he r ca se. Dow ha s not responded. Ap pe llate c ourt s ma

y on ly re vie w fin a l ju dg me nts or int e rl oc uto ry

or de rs sp e c if

ic a lly
m ade a ppeala ble by statute. Lehmann v. Har- Con Corp. , 3 9 S
. W
. 3 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 5 ( T e x. 2 00 1) ; see Tex. C iv
. Pr a c . & Re m. Co d e A n n . § 5 1
. 0 1 4 ( We s t S u p p . 2 0 0 6 ) ( li s ti n g a

p p e a la b le inte r lo c u tory order s). B eca

use Dow ha s prese nted no appea lable judgment or order , this Court l acks jurisdiction. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l.

_____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Diane H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and He nson Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: May

29, 2007