Court Opinion

ID: 9959991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-13 16:12:19.657545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:03.763128
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-24-00064-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

     IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF EDGARDO CASTILLO
               ROSALES AND ESMERALDA GARCIA

        ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 10
                  OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

       On January 16, 2024, appellant Edgardo Castillo Rosales a/k/a Edgardo Castillo

filed a notice of appeal from an order granting a bill of review in favor of appellee

Esmeralda Garcia. On February 7, 2024, the Clerk of this Court advised appellant that

the order he was attempting to appeal was not appealable, directed him to correct this

defect within ten days, if possible, and informed him that the appeal would be dismissed

if this defect was not cured. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). Appellant did not respond to
the Clerk’s directives.

       “A bill of review which sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of all the

issues of the case on the merits is interlocutory in nature and not a final judgment

appealable to the court of appeals or the supreme court.” Kiefer v. Touris, 197 S.W.3d

300, 302 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d

705, 705 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam)); see Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex.

1995) (per curiam); In re D.N.C., 656 S.W.3d 764, 766 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, no

pet.); Weiss v. Kenneth D. Eichner, P.C., 632 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 2021, no pet.); In re Estrada, 492 S.W.3d 42, 46 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–

Edinburg 2016, orig. proceeding).

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal and the

record, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. The trial court’s order

granting the bill of review sets aside and vacates the trial court’s previous judgment,

reopens the case, and grants a new trial. The order does not dispose of all the issues of

the case on the merits and accordingly, is interlocutory in nature and not a final,

appealable judgment. See Kiefer, 197 S.W.3d at 302; Jordan, 907 S.W.2d at 472; In re

D.N.C., 656 S.W.3d at 766. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                                                NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                                Justice

Delivered and filed on the
11th day of April, 2024.

                                             2