Court Opinion

ID: 2754838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-11-25 13:08:16.834702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:12.067222
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-14-00618-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

               In the Interest of C.M.R., Minor Child
____________________________________________________________

          On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
              Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
                      Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant, father of C.M.R, attemped to perfect an appeal from an order granting

a petition to intervene for conservatorship, in cause no. 2014-FAM-60148-5.         Upon

review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable

judgment. On October 24, 2014, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect

so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days

from the date of receipt of the notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. Appellant responded by filing an order signed by the trial court on November

12, 2014, denying appellant’s motion to dismiss intervenor’s petition in intervention for

conservatorship.

       In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review

final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har-

Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that a judgment or order is final

for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all pending parties and claims before the

court). We cannot find any statutory authority that allows a party to appeal from an

interlocutory order that grants a petition for intervention or denies a motion to dismiss a

petition in intervention.

       The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to

correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.       Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                                                      PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 25th
day of November, 2014.

                                             2