Court Opinion

ID: 9409198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-17 08:08:26.216264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.103700
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
      ___________________________
           No. 02-23-00192-CV
      ___________________________

       DELORIS PHILLIPS, Appellant

                      V.

  SUGAR CREEK APARTMENTS, Appellee

  On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2
           Tarrant County, Texas
       Trial Court No. 2022-001468-2

  Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In December 2022, the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of

Appellant Deloris Phillips. See Phillips v. Sugar Creek Apartments, No. 02-23-00107-CV,

2023 WL 3643674, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 25, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem.

op.). Several months later—after the trial court’s plenary power had expired1—

Appellant filed a post-judgment motion related to preservation of the record, then she

attempted to appeal from the corresponding order denying her motions. Id. Because

the order was not appealable, we dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Id.

      Now, Appellant attempts to appeal from two new post-judgment orders:2

(1) an order denying her motions to appoint counsel and a special master, and (2) an

order denying her motion to amend the judgment. Again, these orders are not

appealable.

      “Unless specifically authorized by statute, Texas appellate courts only have

jurisdiction to review final judgments.” Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422

S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); see Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195, 205

      1
        “When . . . an order or judgment is rendered by a trial court after its plenary
power has expired,” even if that order or judgment is appealable, “an appellate court’s
jurisdiction is limited to setting aside the order or judgment and dismissing the appeal
for want of jurisdiction.” Haider v. Associated Props., L.P., No. 02-21-00181-CV, 2022
WL 4373605, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 22, 2022, no pet.) (per curiam)
(mem. op.).
      2
       The two post-judgment orders were signed in June 2023, after we handed
down our opinion in Phillips. See 2023 WL 3643674, at *1 (reflecting date of May 25,
2023).

                                           2
(Tex. 2001). No statute authorizes an appeal from an order denying a motion to

amend a judgment, denying a motion to appoint counsel, or denying a motion to

appoint a special master. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a); Regalado

v. Securus Techs., No. 02-23-00089-CV, 2023 WL 3370727, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth May 11, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting order denying motion to appoint

counsel is not appealable). And such orders are not final judgments either. See Bella

Palma, LLC v. Young, 601 S.W.3d 799, 801 (Tex. 2020) (“[A] judgment is final either if

‘it actually disposes of every pending claim and party’ or ‘it clearly and unequivocally

states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.’” (emphasis altered) (quoting

Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205)).

       Accordingly, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction

over this appeal and warned that we would dismiss the appeal unless, within ten days,

she showed grounds for continuing it. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. More than a

month has passed, and we have not received a response.

       We therefore dismiss Appellant’s attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

                                                       /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

                                                        Bonnie Sudderth
                                                        Chief Justice

Delivered: July 13, 2023

                                             3