Court Opinion

ID: 4473821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-16 15:13:26.468725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:53:51.994306
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-19-00434-CV
                               __________________

                      CHARLES RAY MASON, Appellant

                                          V.

    ARTHUR J. WOOD, GARY E. HUNTER, BRENDA SPITALERI,
   PATRICIA A. STROBL, MARCIAL J. FOISIE JR., BRIDGETTE D.
  CHARLIE, RAMONA E. JORDAN, AND CYNTHIA WOOD, Appellees

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 411th District Court
                         Polk County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. CIV24101
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Charles Ray Mason filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order

denying his motion for entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc. We questioned our

jurisdiction and notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction unless we received a response establishing our jurisdiction. Mason filed

a response, but he failed to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction.
                                          1
      This Court’s appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final judgments

and such interlocutory orders as the legislature has deemed appealable. See Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014; 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 is not a final, appealable order); North East Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge,

400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966) (holding that appeal ordinarily may be taken only

from a final judgment). The trial court’s order denying Mason’s motion for judgment

nunc pro tunc is not a final, appealable order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

§ 51.014; Shadowbrook Apartments, 783 S.W.2d at 211. Accordingly, we dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                                          PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 15, 2020
Opinion Delivered January 16, 2020

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.

                                          2