Court Opinion

ID: 9640633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:10:24.422061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:31.277022
License: Public Domain

MIRABAL, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The majority dismisses this appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding that the appeal was not timely filed. I disagree.
The Civil Practice and Remedies Code specifically provides:
A person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, or county court that:
(1) appoints a receiver or trustee; [or]
(2) overrules a motion to vacate an order that appoints a receiver or trusteed]
Tex.Civ.PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(1) and (2) (Vernon Supp.1993).
Appellant filed his motion seeking to vacate the receivership, the trial court overruled the motion, and appellant appealed from that order within the 20 days required for appeals from interlocutory orders by Tex R.App.P. 42(a)(3). By virtue of section 51.-014(2) and rule 42(a)(3), we have jurisdiction of this appeal. We should reach the merits of the appeal and determine whether the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled appellant’s motion seeking to vacate the order that appointed the receiver.