Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 5 , 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00913-CV

JEFF SILL AND NEWPORT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., Appellants

V.

LYNN FORNER F/K/A LYNN BEALL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-02253-2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Stoddart

Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014 and Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 28.3, Jeff Sill and Newport Construction Services, Inc. have filed a petition 

for permissive interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d),(f)

(West 2015); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3. We may accept an interlocutory appeal if (1) the order being 

appealed involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for 

difference of opinion, and (2) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the 

ultimate termination of the litigation. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d),(f) 

(West 2015). A “controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for 

difference of opinion” has been explained as follows:
–2–

[A] controlling question of law is one that deeply affects the ongoing process of 

litigation. If resolution of the question will considerably shorten the time, effort, 

and expense of fully litigating the case, the question is controlling. Generally, if 

the viability of a claim rests upon the court’s determination of a question of law, 

the question is controlling . . .. Substantial grounds for disagreement exist when 

the question presented to the court is novel or difficult, when controlling circuit 

law is doubtful, when controlling circuit law is in disagreement with other courts 

of appeals, and where there simply is little authority upon which the district court 

can rely. . .. Generally, a district court will make [a finding that the appeal will 

facilitate final resolution of the case] when resolution of the legal question 

dramatically affects recovery in a lawsuit.

ADT Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Van Peterson Fine Jewelers, 05-15-00646-CV, 2015 WL 4554519 *2 

(Tex. App.—Dallas July 29, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting Gulf Coast Asphalt Co. v. Lloyd, 

457 S.W.3d 539, 543-44 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.)).

The order appellants seek permission to appeal denies their motion for partial summary 

judgment on their claim that a default judgment entered against them was void for lack of 

service. The order further identifies three legal questions which the trial court concluded would 

immediately end the dispute between the parties, Those questions concern service of process 

and are well-settled. Well-settled questions are not proper for a permissive appeal because they 

are not subject to “a substantial ground for difference of opinion.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 51.014(d),(f); ADT, 2015 WL 4554519 *2. Accordingly, we deny the petition and 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(f); 

TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(j), 43.2(f).

150913F.P05

/Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JEFF SILL AND NEWPORT 

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., 

Appellants

No. 05-15-00913-CV V.

LYNN FORNER F/K/A LYNN BEALL, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-02253-2014.

Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Lang-Miers 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellee Lynn Forner f/k/a Lynn Beall recover her costs, if any, of this 

appeal from appellants Jeff Sill and Newport Construction Services, Inc.

Judgment entered this 5th day of October, 2015.