Opinion ID: 2828999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The trial court’s interlocutory order lacks finality under the TAA.

Text: The TAA appeals provision, adopted verbatim in 1965 from the Uniform Arbitration Act, authorizes appeals of certain trial court orders, even if they are interlocutory, as long as they have attributes of finality. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.098(a); Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, prefatory note, 162 (1955) (stating “[t]he Section on Appeals is intended to remove doubts as to what orders are appealable and to limit appeals prior to judgment to those instances where the element of finality is present ” (emphasis added)). The interlocutory order at issue here, which mandated a rehearing of Werline’s claims, lacks any “element of finality.” We must abide by the Legislature’s decision to exempt from appeal those cases that are bound to be reheard. See Ogletree v. Matthews , 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex. 2007) (“Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final orders or judgments unless a statute permits an interlocutory appeal.”); cf. Tex. A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu , 233 S.W.3d 835, 841 (Tex. 2007) (observing that we strictly construe the general interlocutory appeals statute as “‘a narrow exception to the general rule that only final judgments are appealable’” (quoting Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson , 53 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. 2001))).