K e n n e dy s t yl e d h e r s u i t“ J an e tK e n n e dy an d A l a m o R an c h , In c . v . B o b b y J o e K e n n e dy, 1 Clay ton Crenwelg e, and Be tty Crenwe lge .” We will ref er to appellants as “Ke nnedy ,” to B obby J oe Kenne dy individually

as “a ppellee,” and to Bobby J oe Kennedy and the Crenwe lge s as “a ppellees.” Kenne dy also filed suit ag ainst appellee in Hay s Co u nty , and the Ha

y s County court g rante d 2 appellee ’s motion to have Kenne dy decla red a vexatious l itigant. Ke nnedy filed a notice of appe al and a pe tition for writ of mandamus, see king r eview of the trial court’ s interlocutory deter minations that she wa s not indigent a nd was a vexatious litiga

nt, a s well as the tria l judge ’s re fusal to re move himself from the cause . On May 5, this Court dismiss ed Ke nnedy ’s interlocutory appea l for wa

nt of j urisdiction and denie d her pe tition for writ of mandamus. See Kennedy v. Kenne dy , No. 03-06- 00080-CV (Te x . App.—Austin May 5, 2006, no pet. h.). 

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

NO. 03-06-00181- CV

Janet K ennedy and Alam o Ranch, Inc., App ellants
v. Bobb y Joe K ennedy, Clayton Crenwelge and Betty C renwelge, Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. GN504102 , HO NORAB LE MARGARET A. COO P ER, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
I n2 0 0 2 , a p p e ll an t Ja

n e t K e n n e dy

an d a p p e ll e e B o b b y

Jo e K e n n e dy

w e r e divorce d (c a us e numbe r 0 3- 02 -0 00 25 -C V)
. Thre e y e ars late r, Ke nn e dy , on he r ow n be ha lf and in t he name of Alamo Ranc h, I nc., sued a ppellees f or conspira cy , fra

ud, and invasion of privac y , claims she states
are not relate d to the divorce
. Appellee s filed a motion seekingto have Ke nnedy decla red a 1
ve xati ou s li tig ant. Th e tr ia l c ourt g ra nte d th a t mo tio n on Mar c h 21, 20 06 , o rd e ri ngKe nn e dy to p os t 2 a $20,000 bond. Ke nnedy seeks to appe al from the tr ial court’s inter locutory order
.2 Gene rally , we may

only exercise jurisdiction over appea ls from final orders. De loi tte & Tou c he , LLP v . F ou rte e nth Cou rt o

f A pp e als , 9 51 S.W. 2d

39 4, 39 8 ( Te x. 19 97 ); Bo bb itt v . Ca ntu , 992 S.W .2d 709, 711 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.). Howeve r, t he leg islature has c arve d out sp e c i f i c e xc e p t i on s to that r

ule , g ivi ngus statut or

y a uth or ity to c on sid e r c e rt a in i nte rl oc uto ry a pp e a ls. Deloitte &Touche , 9 51 S.W. 2d a t 39 8; see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2005). The statute authorizing interlocutory appea ls is a narr ow exception to the g ener al rule that we may only consider f

inal judgme nts and order s , an d we t here fore g ive it a strict construc tion. B e x a r M e tro . W a te r D is t. v . Ci ty of Bulverde , 1 56 S.W. 3d 79 , 8 5 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 20 04 , p e t. denied) . A trial cour

t’s order finding that a litigant is a vexatious litiga nt is not properly

made the subject of a

n interlocuto ry ap p eal. See Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. C od e Ann. § 5 1. 01 4; Phillips v. Phillips , N o. 01 -0 3- 00 67 6- CV , 2 00 4 Tex
. Ap p. L EX I S 11 30 0, *2 -* 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t Di st. ] De c . 1 6, 20 04 , n o p e t.) ; Kirk v . Lucas , No. 02-04-00295- CV, 2004 Tex. App. L EXI S 10145, *1 -* 2 (T e x. Ap p. —F or

t Worth No v. 12 , 2 00 4, no pe t.) ; Mi lle r v . S tate , No. 05-01-00115- CV, 2001 Tex. App. L EXI S 2897, *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 3, 2001, no pet.). There fore , we dismiss the interlocutory

appea l for wa

nt of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Waldrop Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: May

12, 2006