Court Opinion

ID: 9382248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 18:11:48.296142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.957088
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00500-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

LE BIN CHEN,                                                               Appellant,

                                                v.

THE COUNTY OF WHARTON,
TEXAS,                                              Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 329th District Court
                   of Wharton County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
                Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

      Appellant, Le Bin Chen, attempted to appeal an order to cancel Sheriff’s deed,

vacate judgment, and reinstate cause of action in cause no. T010476. See TEX. TAX.

CODE ANN. § 33.56. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appears there is

no final, appealable order. On October 20, 2022, and January 31, 2023, the Clerk of this
Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if

it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect

was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of each notice, the appeal would

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant responded, asserting that the trial court

granted all the relief requested by Wharton County by cancelling the sheriff’s deed,

vacating judgment dated October 12, 2020, reinstating the tax sale cause of action, and

ordering the tax assessor to reinstate taxes on the property, making the order a final,

appealable order.

       “[A] judgment issued without a conventional trial is final for purposes of appeal if

and only if either [1] it actually disposes of all claims and parties then before the court,

regardless of its language, or [2] it states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final

judgment as to all claims and all parties.” Farm Bureau Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 455

S.W.3d 161, 163 (Tex. 2015) (quoting Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192-

93 (Tex. 2001)). Here, as required by statute, the order appellant attempts to appeal

reopens claims to be decided again, rather than disposing of them. See TEX. TAX. CODE

ANN. § 33.56(f). Absent an order disposing of all issues and parties, interlocutory appeals

must be authorized by statute. See N.Y. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d

677, 678 (Tex. 1990); San Jacinto Title Servs. of Corpus Christi, LLC. v. Kingsley Props.,

LP, 452 S.W.3d 343, 347 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2013, pet. denied)

(“Appellate courts possess jurisdiction only over final judgments unless a statute

authorizes an interlocutory appeal.”). Appellant has not identified any statute that permits

this interlocutory appeal. See Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d at 678.

                                              2
       The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to

correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for

want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction. See id. 42.3(a).

                                                               CLARISSA SILVA
                                                               Justice

Delivered and filed on the
23rd day of March, 2023.

                                             3