Court Opinion

ID: 4193705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-08-07 07:25:28.429962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:08.010266
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-17-00285-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

     IN THE ESTATE OF STEWART D. HERVEY JR., DECEASED
____________________________________________________________

              On appeal from the 25th District Court
                  of Gonzales County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
             Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides
                 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

       Appellant, Karen Kilpatrick, attempted to perfect an appeal from the trial court’s

order imposing sanctions which took place at a hearing conducted on March 9, 2017, in

cause no. 26048. According to the notice of appeal, a motion to sever had been filed,

but the trial court had not signed a written order of severance to make the order final.

       Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final

appealable judgment. On June 7, 2017, 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 the notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. Appellant has not responded to the Court’s notice.

       In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review

final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har-

Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Because there is no final judgment or order

subject to appeal, the notice of appeal is premature. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 27.1(a)

       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.      Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                                               NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
                                                               Justice

Delivered and filed the
3rd day of August, 2017.

                                             2