Court Opinion

ID: 9406759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-03 17:08:48.30994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:32.913269
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued June 29, 2023

                                 In The

                           Court of Appeals
                                For The

                       First District of Texas
                          ————————————
                           NO. 01-23-00070-CV
                           NO. 01-23-00073-CV
                         ———————————
                   KOFFEY SMITH EL-BEY, Appellant
                                   V.
 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, DECEASED AND PEGGY
RUTH WILLIAMS AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
              ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, Appellees

           On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4
                         Harris County, Texas
               Trial Court Case Nos. 1197771 & 1197755

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Appellant Koffey Smith El-Bey attempts to appeal from the county court’s

interlocutory order, signed on March 25, 2023, entitled “Order For Statement of

Inability Affidavit.”

      Generally, a Texas appellate court has jurisdiction to hear only an appeal from

a final judgment. Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992).

However, appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of

interlocutory orders if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v.

DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998); New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v.

Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex. 1990); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

§ 51.014 (statutory list of appealable interlocutory orders).

      Here, the county court’s order denies appellant’s appeal of the justice court’s

order sustaining the contest of his statement of inability to pay. See TEX. R. CIV. P.

510.9(c)(4). Such order is not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order,

and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to eviction suits do not otherwise

provide a mechanism for appeal of such an order. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 500.3(e),

510.9; Brown v. Hawkins, No. 05-16-001427-CV, 2018 WL 1312467, at *4 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Mar. 14, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); Redlich v. Ranch, No. 02-14-

00390, 2015 WL 226038, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 15, 2015, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (stating, “We are aware of no statute that authorizes an appeal to this

                                           2
court from the county court’s decision on appeal from the justice court denying

[appellant’s] attempt to appeal without furnishing a bond or paying a cash deposit”).

      On April 6, 2023, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice stating that this Court

might dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response,

within 10 days of the notice, explaining how this Court has jurisdiction over this

appeal. Appellant did not respond to the notice.1

      Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction and for failing to

respond to this Court’s notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). We dismiss any

pending motions as moot.

                                   PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.

1
      Appellant filed an untimely and deficient motion for extension to file a response on
      April 24, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b).
                                           3