Court Opinion

ID: 4657691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-05 07:19:50.743326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:16.671456
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-20-00273-CV
                               __________________

 SLK & ASSOCIATES, LLC, SUZAN GRANDE, FRANK GRANDE, AND
         JENSEN MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Appellants

                                         V.

                     DARLENE PAYNE SMITH, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
                     Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 20-31879
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellants SLK & Associates, LLC, Suzan Grande, Frank Grande, and Jensen

Management Group, Inc. filed a notice of appeal complaining about the trial court’s

order denying their motion to reconsider its ruling from an earlier order in which the

trial court had granted Darlene Payne Smith’s motion for summary judgment. After

the Clerk filed the notice, the Court sent a letter to the parties dated December 3,

2020 and invited the parties to explain whether the Court had jurisdiction over an

                                          1
appeal from an order denying a motion to reconsider. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. None

of the parties responded to the Court’s letter.

      We conclude the Court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal that involves a ruling

on an order denying a motion to reconsider. See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

Ann. § 51.014. Given the fact that the parties have not identified any statutory basis

that allows this Court to exercise jurisdiction over appeals from orders like the one

at issue in this appeal, the appeal must be dismissed for lack jurisdiction. See id.; see

also Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). For that reason,

the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                                          PER CURIAM

Submitted on February 3, 2021
Opinion Delivered February 4, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                           2