Court Opinion

ID: 9960468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 14:12:31.937386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:29.728553
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                     San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                        No. 04-23-00959-CV

               Billy STONE known correctly as Billie O. Stone, d/b/a Stobil Enterprise,
                                           Appellant

                                                  v.

  K CLARK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, Agent for Trans Ventura, LLC Series B,
                           Appellees

                      From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas
                                  Trial Court No. 2020CV00366
                           Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Irene Rios, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 10, 2024

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

           The underlying dispute in this appeal began as a forcible detainer action. In 2020, the

county court at law awarded possession of the premises in question to appellee, and a writ of

possession was executed on February 19, 2020. Appellants appealed the county court’s judgment

in Cause Number 04-20-00124-CV, but we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Stone

v. K Clark Prop. Mgmt. LLC, No. 04-20-00124-CV, 2020 WL 2139294, at *1 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio May 6, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam). In our order dismissing Cause Number

04-20-00124-CV, we directed “that no costs be assessed against appellants Billy Stone dba Stobil
                                                                                     04-23-00959-CV

Enterprise and All Occupants because they are indigent.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1 (defining

“costs” as “filing fees charged by the appellate court”).

       The clerk’s record in this appeal shows that in the years since we issued our opinion, order,

and mandate in Cause Number 04-20-00124-CV, appellants have filed multiple motions in the

county court arguing that our mandate entitled them to a refund of costs and fees they paid to the

justice court and the county court at law during the forcible detainer proceedings. The county court

at law has signed at least three orders denying appellants’ requested relief, most recently on

October 16, 2023. On October 25, 2023, appellants filed a notice of appeal from the county court’s

October 16 order.

       Generally, a direct appeal may challenge only “a final judgment or certain interlocutory

orders expressly made appealable by statute.” Sunnyland Dev., Inc. v. Shawn Ibrahim, Inc., 597

S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, no pet.); see also Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.,

39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). In most cases, there is only one final, appealable judgment. See

Butler v. Amegy Bank, N.A., No. 14-15-00410-CV, 2016 WL 3574685, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] June 30, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). “Orders made for the purpose of enforcing or

carrying into effect an already-rendered judgment generally are not final judgments or decrees,

and therefore cannot be appealed.” Sintim v. Larson, 489 S.W.3d 551, 556 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.); In re Doe, 397 S.W.3d 847, 849 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, no

pet.); Qualia v. Qualia, 37 S.W.3d 128, 129 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.). “An appeal

from a post-judgment order that is not appealable must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”

Sunnyland, 597 S.W.3d at 3; see also Lovall v. Yen, No. 14-07-00770-CV, 2008 WL 361373, at

*1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 12, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of

post-judgment order that “was merely a ministerial act incident to the final judgment, providing

for disbursement of funds directed by the [final] judgment, akin to a writ of execution”).

                                                -2-
                                                                                                04-23-00959-CV

        Because the order challenged in this appeal did not appear to be either a final judgment or

an appealable interlocutory order, on January 29, 2024, we ordered appellants to show cause why

this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On February 28, 2024, appellants filed

the response required by our order. Appellants’ response appears to argue that our 2020 judgment

in Cause Number 04-20-00124-CV should have resolved certain issues involved in the forcible

detainer proceedings but did not do so. Appellants also again contend that our 2020 judgment in

Cause Number 04-20-00124-CV entitled them to recover all costs and fees they paid during the

forcible detainer proceedings. 1 However, appellants cite no authority to support a conclusion that

the challenged order was either a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, and we have

found none. See, e.g., Qualia, 37 S.W.3d at 129; Lovall, 2008 WL 361373, at *1–2. Accordingly,

we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                                        PER CURIAM

1
  Appellants’ response also asks us to amend our judgment in Cause Number 04-20-00124-CV to award them the
bond and other fees they paid below. Our plenary power over the May 6, 2020 judgment in Cause Number 04-20-
00124-CV expired on July 5, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1(a). We therefore lack authority to modify the judgment
in that appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 19.3.

                                                      -3-