NO. 07-07 -005 5-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A MA Y2, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ ELI ZABET H GUTIE RREZ, APPE LLA NT

V. ZU RI CH AM ER IC AN IN SU RA NC E C OM PAN YAS SU BR OGEE OF HU NTERIN DU STRIE S, I NC . AN D JOH NN IE H ILL, APPEL LEES

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 27 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HAYS CO UNT Y; TH NO . 03- 1179; HO NO RA BLE B ILL H EN RY , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t El iz abeth Guti er re zatt empts to ap peal after the tr ial co urt g ra nted a Mo ti on to Sev er

fil ed by Z ur ic h Ameri ca n Ins urance Compan y ( Zur ic h) and re mov ed Guti er re z a s a par

ty i n thi s c ase. Si nce Guti er re zi s n ot a par ty i n thi s s uitand has no sta ndi ng to file a not ic e of appeal , we di smi ss for want o f jur is dicti on.2 Back g ro und On A ug ust20, 2003, Zuric h fil ed an act ion ag ain st Guti er re zand Mi g uel Gomez seekin g dam ages arising f rom a car acciden t
. O n Decem ber 5, 2 005 , the trial court gra n t e d a d e fa u ltju d gm e n ta ga in s tG o m e z a n d p ro c e e d e d o n t h e ca s e a s t o G u t ie rre z. On J uly 12, 2006, Zur ic h fil ed a Mo ti o n t o S e v er req uest ing the tr ial co urt s ev er the jud g ment ag ain st Gomezi nto a se parate p ro ceedi ng si nce all ca uses of act ion as ser ted against Go me zhad b een d ispose d. On the same date , Zurich also mo v ed for sum ma ry jud g ment ag ain st Guti er re z . On A ug ust8, the t ri al cour t g ra nted Zur ic h’s M oti on to Sev er and sig ned a prepa re d severance o rder; ho w ever, the trial court exchanged Gutierrez’s name for Gomez ’s name t hroug h mostof the p re pared order , but not all ins tanc es. The re sul ti ng ord e r cre a te d a new ca use number , 03- 1179A, and sta ted t hat “ all ca uses of act ion pl ed by

Pl ain ti ff ag ain st DefendantGomezbe s ev ered i nto a new ca use of acti on w it h the foll ow ing ca use number and sty le: C ause No. 03- 1179A; Z ur ic h Amer ic an Insu rance Comp any . . . v . Eliz abe th Gu tierrez . . . .” A rev iew of the c ler k’ s record i n thi s c ause of acti on does not cont ain ei ther an o rd er grant ing Zuri ch’s sum ma ry judgmen t nor Gut ierrez ’s mo tion fo r new tri al f iled after August 8, 20 06. How ever, ac c o rd in g to Zurich’s respo nse to Gutierrez’s Motion for New Trial, w hich is cont aine d in the clerk’s record, th e trial court granted Zurich’s motio n for sum ma ry ju d gm e n t o n Au gus t 8 an d Gu ti e rre z f ile d a m o ti o n fo r ne w tr ia l o n S e p te m b e r 7
. Alt h o u gh no moti on for a new

tr ial after

Aug ust8 i s c ontai ned i n the cler k’ s rec ord, an order date d Nov ember

14, 2006 d e n ie s Guti er re z ’s moti on for new tr ial
. Gut ier re zfil ed not ic e of appeal on D ecember

13.3 Law and An alysi s Subj ect matter

j ur is dicti on i s e ss enti al to t he aut hor ity of a c our

t t o dec ide a c ase. T ex. A s s ’ n of B us . v . Tex
. Ai r C on trol B d. , 85 2 S. W .2 d 44 0, 4 43 ( Tex .1 99 3)
. S ub j ect matter j ur is dicti on i s nev er

presu med and canno t be w aiv ed. Id. at 443-4 4. Subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on may

be ra is ed for

the firs t time on appeal. Id. at 445. The i ss ue may be rais ed sua sponte by a cour

t, and is a l eg al q uest ion su bje ct to de n ovore vie w. Se e Ma yh e w v. Sunnyv ale , 964 S.W .2d 9 22, 9 28 (Tex .1998)
. Standi ng is a co mponent of subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on; i t c annot be waiv ed. See Tex . As s’ n of Bus ., 852 S. W .2d a t 443 -4 4. Gen erally , an am biguous o rder ma y be con strued in lig ht of the m otion upo n w hich itw as g ra nted. Lon e St ar C ement C or p. v . Fai r, 467 S.W .2d 402, 404 (Tex . 197 1)
. The same r ule s o f inter pretati on appl y in cons tr uin g the meanin g of a c our t order or j udg ment as in ascerta ining the m ean ing of othe r w ritten instru me nts. I d. 40 4-05 . Th e en tire cont ents of the ins tr ument and record shoul d be cons ide re d, and the ins tr ument i s t o be re ad as a w hol e. Id. at 40 5. In review ing the record, it w ould app ear tha t the t rial cou rt se v ered Zurich’s cause of acti on ag ain st Guti er re zinto the new cause of acti on, c ause no. 0 3- 1179A. Therefore, G u t ie rre z is n o lo n ge r a p a rt y in t h e p re s e n t c a u s e o f a ct io n a n d , t h u s , d o e s n o th a ve sta ndi ng to file an appe al. Se e Buc khol ts Indep. Sc h. D is t. v . G las er , 632 S.W .2d 1 46, 1 50 (Tex .1982)( appeal ing par ty ca nnot compl ain of er ro rs thatdo not i nju ri ousl y affecti ts ri g hts o r t h a tm e re ly a f

fe ctt h e ri gh t s o f

o t h e rs ). He n c e , w e co n c lu d e t h a twe d o n o th a ve jur is dicti on to co nsi der

Gut ier re z ’s appeal i n thi s c ause.4 Con cl usi on For the foreg oin g reason s, w e di smi ss for want o f jur is dicti on.
Mackey K. Hancock Justice