Appeal Reinstated; Motion to Dismiss Denied; Order filed November 29, 2012
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00037

- CV

____________ HELEN MAYFIELD , Appellant

V. JOHN CUOCO, STEVE FU LLH ART, KBTX NEWS, a Corporation , and GRAY COMMUNICATIONS, a Corporation , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 26159



### ORDER Appellant filed a notice of appeal on January 10, 2012 , to appeal two orders signed December 13, 2011 . Appella nt also filed an Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. Appellant filed a second notice of appeal from the trial court’s ruling on her claim of indigence, and that appeal was assigned to this court and docketed under our a ppellate case number 14

- 12

- 00392

- CV. We ordered the record pertaining to appellant’s indigence claim filed. See In re Arroyo , 988 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tex. 1998). We also abated this appeal pending our review of appellant’s indigence appeal.2

The clerk’s recor d has now been filed in both appeals. The record reveal s that the trial court overruled the Harris County District Clerk’s contest to appellant’s affidavit. Therefore, a ppellant is entitled to appeal without the advance payment of costs. The indigence appe al docketed under number 14

- 12

- 00392

- CV is moot and has been dismissed. Accordingly, we order this appeal REINSTATED.
At the time this appeal was abated, appellee s ’ Steve Fullhart and Gray Television Group, Inc. d/b/a KBTX

- TV ’s motion to dismiss was pendi ng. 1 In the motion, appellee s complain that appellant did not pay the appellate filing fee, did not pay for preparation of the clerk’s record on appeal, and her affidavit of indigence was deficient. The trial court ordered that appellant may proceed withou t the advance payment of costs on appeal. Accordingly, the issues rais ed in appellee s ’ motion do not provide a basis for dismissal of the appeal. See Arroyo, 988 S.W.2d at 739 (holding that appellate court may not dismiss appeal for appellant’s failure to file the complete record pending resolution of appellant’s claim of indigence). Accordingly, we DENY appellee s ’ motion to dismiss.
However, the record raises a jurisdictional question. According to the record, t his is an attempted appeal from two orders s igned December 13, 2011: an order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by appellee s Steve Ful l hart and KBTX

- TV (the media defendants) , and an order denying appellant’s counter

- motion for summary judgment

. Our record does not contain any documenta tion concerning resolution of the claims against the other defendant named in the suit , John Cuoco. In fact, the trial court’s docket sheet indicates that the case has been set for trial. Therefore, it appear s that the summary judgment in favor of the medi a defendants, even though denominated as final, is interlocutory.
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Ogletree v. Matthews , 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n. 1 (Tex.200 6). Interlocutory orders are not appealable unless

1 T he parties to this appeal are named as they were in the original petition. The corporate a ppellee has asserted that its correct n ame is Gray Television Group, Inc. d/b/a KBTX

- TV.3

explicitly made so by s tatute. Stary v. DeBord , 967 S.W.2d 352, 352

– 53 (Tex. 1998). We strictly construe statutes giving us jurisdiction o ver interlocutory appeals. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Williams , 958 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.).

A media def

endant may appeal an interlocutory order denying a motion for summary judgment raising a free speech defense

. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Cod e § 51.014(a)(6) . In this case, the media defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. The order denying app ellant’s counter

- motion for summary judgment is not appealable. See Kaufman v. Islamic Soc. of Arlington , 2 91 S.W.3d 130 , 137 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2009 , pet. denied)

. Accordingly the court will consider dismissal of this appeal for want of jurisdiction u nless any party files a response demonstrating that this court has jurisdiction on or before December 14, 2012.

PER CURIAM