Opinion issued January 1 2 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 6 - 00 7 9 1 - CV

——————————— TODD DAVID ROGERS , A ppellant

V. GINA MARIE ROGERS AND JANA HUDMAN - CAVAZOS , A ppellee s

On Appeal from the 4 3 4 th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1 2 - DCV - 199022
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Todd David Rogers, proceeding pro se, attempted to appeal from the trial court’s two post
- mandate interlocutory orders, the first one authorizing the receiver to sell property and the second one confirming the sale of real property, both signed on September 19, 2016 . The trial court had signed the final divorce2

decree on September 8, 2015 , and on appeal, this Court affirmed that decree on June 2, 2016, and issued our mandate on August 12, 2016, under appellate cause number 01

- 15

- 00224

- CV. One of t he appellee s , Jana Hudman

- Cavazos, the receiver, filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisd iction. We agree with appellee, grant the motion, and dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdiction. T h i s C o u rt generally h as j u r i s d i c t io n o v er a p p e a l s f

r o m f i n al o r d ers arising under the Texas Family Code u nl e s s a s t a t u t e a u t h o r i z es a n i n t e r lo c u to ry a pp e a l
. S e e T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 109
. 0 02 ( b ) ( W e s t Supp. 2 01 6 ) ( “ A n a pp e a l m a y b e t a k en b y a n y p ar t y t o a su i t fr o m a f in al o r d e r r e n d er e d u nd e r t h i s t i tl e.”); cf
. T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C O DE A NN . § § 5 1
. 0 12, 51.014(a)(1)

– (1 3 ) ( W e s t Supp. 2 01 6 ) (listing appealable interlocutory orders) ; C M H H o m es v. P e r e z , 3 4 0 S. W .3d 444 , 44 7 ( T e x . 2 01 1 ) ( “ U nl e s s a st a tu t e a u t h o r i z e s an i nt e r l o c u t o ry a pp e a l , a p p e l l a t e c ou r

t s g e n er a ll y o n l y h a v e j u r i s d i c t io n o v er a p p ea l s f r o m f in al j u d g m e nts .”); Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). On September 1 9 , 2016, the trial court signed two orders, an “Order Authorizing Receiver to Sell Property ” (“Authorization Order”) and an “Order Confirming Sale of Real Property ” (“Sale Order”) . The Sale Order noted that Hu dman

- Cavazos was appointed by the trial court as receiver on April 27, 2016. On October 3 , 2016, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal from th e Authorization Order and the Sale Order
.3

On November 16, 2016, appellee Hudman

- Cavazos filed this motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, contending that the September 19, 2016 orders, the Authorization Order and the Sale Order , were both non

- appealable interlocutory orders. More than ten days has passed, but appellant filed no response to the motion
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 10.3(a). On November 29 , 2016, t he Clerk of this Court notified appellant that t h i s appeal wa s subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he timely responded to this notice and the motion and showed how this Court had jurisdiction. See id. 42.3 (a), ( c). Appellant failed to file a timely response to the notice
. Although the April 27, 2016 order appointing the receiver would have bee n
an appealable interlocutory order had appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, that order is not on appeal here. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 51.014(a)(1). Here, n either the post
- mandate Authorization Order nor the Sale Order , both signed on September 19, 2016, appointed a receiver. Moreover, neither the Authorization Order nor the Sale Order are final orders under the Texas Family Code , and neither of them fall under any of the categories of orders that are authorized as appealable. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 109.002(b) ; T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 51.014(a)(1)

- (13); see also Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 200. The clerk’s record, filed in this Court on November 21, 2016, does not include or refer to a final order or judgment that has been rendered in this new4

case. Thus, w e must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See , e.g. , Smith v. Robertson , No. 01

- 15

- 00538

- CV , 2015 WL 9311431, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 22, 2015, no pet.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction appeal of refusal of trial court to sign an order in SAPCR because records did not include final order) (citation omitted)
. Accordingly, we grant appellee Hudman

- Cavazos ’s motion and dismiss th i s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3( a); 43.2(f). We dismiss

a ny other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley , and L l oyd
.