Court Opinion

ID: 9915723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-07 09:13:38.090983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:35.839949
License: Public Domain

Motion granted, Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 4,
2024.

                                       In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-23-00581-CV

                            LEWIS COOK, Appellant

                                         V.

                     HARRIS COUNTY, ET AL., Appellees

                    On Appeal from the 234th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 2018-17514

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is an appeal from a post-judgment order signed June 20, 2023, denying
appellant’s request to withdraw excess proceeds from the trial court’s registry
pursuant to Section 34.04 of the Texas Tax Code. The record reflects the request
was made following a January 4, 2022 sale of real property and the deposit of excess
funds with the trial court clerk on February 1, 2022.

      On December 12, 2023, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the
basis that the appealed-from order is not a final judgment or order, but is rather an
unappealable interlocutory order. The basis of their argument is that the trial court’s
order was signed less than two years after the underlying property was sold. More
than ten days have elapsed since the motion was filed, and appellant has not filed
any response.

      Appellees’ argument centers on Section 34.04 of the Texas Tax Code. That
provision governs claims for excess proceeds from the tax sale of property, and
requires that claims for excess proceeds be filed “before the second anniversary of
the date of the sale of the property.” Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 34.04(a). Post-judgment
orders that deny claims for excess funds and that are signed before that two-year
anniversary are not final orders, as such orders do not resolve property rights to any
of the underlying proceeds. See Baldwin v. Harris Cnty., No. 01-19-00235-CV,
2020 WL 2026366, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 28, 2020, no pet.).
We therefore conclude that the order appellant purports to appeal from is
interlocutory and unappealable. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447
(Tex. 2011) (acknowledging the general rule that “interlocutory orders are not
immediately appealable”).

      We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                   PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hassan, Poissant, and Wilson.

                                          2