Court Opinion

ID: 3078752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:39:12.733288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:08:37.885625
License: Public Domain

In The

                                   Court of Appeals
                      Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                                _________________
                                  NO. 09-12-00550-CV
                                _________________

                             CHERYL BROWN, Appellant

                                            V.

                               DONALD FORD, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                   On Appeal from the 279th District Court
                          Jefferson County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. C-216,173
________________________________________________________________________

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Cheryl Brown filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s October 16, 2012

order granting bill of review in favor of Donald Ford. We notified the parties that the

order referenced in the notice of appeal did not appear to be a final judgment or

appealable interlocutory order and we warned the parties that unless a party desiring to

continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the

appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). The time

for filing a response expired but no response has been filed.

                                             1
       Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har–

Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An order granting a bill of review that sets

aside a prior judgment without disposing of the case on the merits is interlocutory in

nature and is not an appealable final judgment. Kiefer v. Touris, 197 S.W.3d 300, 302

(Tex. 2006). Because the trial court’s order granting Ford’s bill of review does not

dispose of all issues and parties in the case, it is not presently appealable. Id. We dismiss

this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

       APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                                  ________________________________
                                                           HOLLIS HORTON
                                                               Justice

Opinion Delivered January 17, 2013
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.

                                              2