Court Opinion

ID: 9391440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 13:08:43.909607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:42.391398
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                         No. 04-23-00108-CV

                                        Curtis T. WILLIAMS,
                                               Appellant

                                                   v.

                                Larmetrice NUNNALLY-WILLIAMS,
                                             Appellee

                      From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2015-CI-13598
                            Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 26, 2023

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

           Before the court is Appellee’s March 13, 2023 motion to dismiss appeal and Appellant’s

March 24, 2023 response. Appellee moves for dismissal of this appeal on the basis that Appellant’s

appeal is impermissibly interlocutory. In response to the motion to dismiss, Appellant states that

he believed the cause was final after the trial court signed its denial of his motion for correction

and clarification on November 2, 2022.

           Our review of the record shows that the cause is not final because Appellee’s July 21, 2022

petition to modify is still pending in the trial court. See In re M.A.R.M., No. 05-01-01198-CV,
                                                                                 04-23-00108-CV

2001 WL 1450640, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2001, no pet.) (per curiam) (not designated

for publication); Interest of T.C.N., No. 05-20-01085-CV, 2021 WL 2447085, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas June 15, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195

(Tex. 2001)); see also Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu-Ahmad, 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex. 1990)

(holding that the denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc was not a final judgment).

Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion to dismiss appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                               PER CURIAM

                                             -2-