NO. 07- 05-0 093- CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DI STRICT OF T EXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D APRIL 12, 20 06

____________

____________

______ IN THE I NTEREST OF C.L .W. AND H. A.W., MINOR CHIL DREN

____________

____________

_________ FROM THE 99TH DI STRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 9 6-5 56, 965; HONORABL E MACKEY K . HAN COCK, JUDGE

____________

____________

_______ Before QUI NN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPI NION Appell antLee Sheri dan Wikle challeng es an order requiring him to pay child support arrear ages in acco rdanc e with a n agree d order o f mod ification. B ecau se the order is interlocut ory, we must dismi ss the ap peal f or want of ju risdi ction
. Lee and Leigh Anne Wikle wer e div orced by

a decreesigned October 22, 1997. The origi nal decree o f divorce obl igate d Lee topaychild support in an am ount in accordan ce with the Family Code guide line s, plus a dditi onal sup port o f twenty-fi ve percent of any bonuse s Lee1 The order was app roved as to form and su bstan ce by a ppellan t and as to form by his

former coun sel.

2 Althoug h notcontro lling here , the reco rd sug gests that Lee unilatera lly ceased makin g support paym ents per the agreed order. 

### 2 recei ved from hi s employment. Then, on March 27, 2000, t he court signed an agreed order 1 modifyi ng the amoun t and metho d of payme nt. Foll owing t he modifi catio n order , the parti es dis agreed as to whether the ef fect of the additional support exceeded the Family C od e guidel ines. 2 On July 13, 2004 , pursuant to the terms of the modifi ed decree, L eigh filed a motion to enforc e the pa yment of chi ld suppo rt and to modif y of t he ter ms of the decree pertai ning to posse ssion of and access to thechil dren a nd med ical support . She further request ed an award of attorney ’s fe es. On Novem ber 24, 2 004, th e trial cou rt heard Leigh’s motion to compel chil d support per the March 27, 2000 agreed order , but Leigh’ s request for modifi catio n and attorney ’s fe es was notpresented or he ard bythe trial courtat th at ti me. Conside ring the matt ers presented a nd the agreed order

of March 27, 2000, by ord er si gned on Febr uary 9, 2005, L ee was orde red to pay $11,712. 00 in ch ild support arrea rage. The order expre ssly con cluded t hat All other issues raise d by th e pleadi ngs in t hi s proceed i ng are r eserved for determi natio n of t he Court on fi nal hearing i n thi s proceed ing. Lee subs equently filed this appeal, and Le igh has mo ved to dismiss. By his br ief, Lee quest ions whet her th e tri al cour t err ed in orderin g that he pay ch ild support in ex cess of the sta tutory gu idelines and in accordan ce with the agr eed order

of March

### 3

27, 2000. He also qu estio ns whether a court

may retr

oacti vely

alte r a chil d sup port determi natio n. However, where, as here, therehas not been a conv entio nal t rial on the meri ts, an order or j udgment i s not final for p urposes o f appeal unless it actuall y di sposes of every pending claim a nd party or unles s it clearly and unequi vocall y stat es that it final ly di sposes of all clai ms and part ies. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 1 91, 201 (Tex. 2001 ). Nothin g in this record indicates dispos ition of Leigh’s request to mo dify the decree o r her request for an award of

attorney’s f

ees. To t he contr

ary, the cour

t’s Fe bruary

9th or der r eservesother issues for d etermi natio n by th e court on fina l hearing. Thus, the cou rt’s order is interlocutory and not subject to appea l. Therefore, this Court is without pow er to re v iew it and has juri sdicti on only to di smiss the appeal. Steepl e Oil & Gas Corp. v . Amend, 394 S.W.2d 789, 790 (Tex. 1965). We have not

overl ooked Lee’ s alt ernati ve req uest t hat th e appeal be abated so that a new order

may be o btain ed; howev er, t he proced ure i n Iacono v. Ly ons, 6 S. W.3d 715 (Tex. App.–Housto n [1 st Dist.] 1999, order), disp. on merit s, 16 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. App.–Housto n [1stDist. ] 2000, no pet. ), i s not app ropri ate here because t he remain ing i ssues are subject to hearin g and tria l. According ly, the appeal is dismisse d for want of jurisdiction.

Don H. Reavi s Justi ce