This case involves the jurisdiction of the court of appeals to review the granting of a bill of review. Because the bill of review in this case was interlocutory, the court of appeals did not have jurisdiction. Pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 170, a majority of the Court, without hearing oral argument, grants the application for writ of error, reverses the decision of the court of appeals and dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Susan and Ron Jordan sued Kathy and Jerry Jordan in 1990, seeking damages arising from a boating accident in 1989. Suits were filed in both state and federal court. Kathy and Jerry filed an answer in federal court but not in state court. In 1991, the trial court rendered default judgment against Kathy and Jerry. Later that year, Kathy and Jerry initiated a bill of review proceeding, asking the trial court to vacate the prior judgment and render judgment against Susan and Ron. The trial court vacated the prior judgment and ordered a trial on the merits. The court of appeals then reversed the trial court.

A bill of review which sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of the case on the merits is interlocutory and not appealable. Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1990); Warren v. Walter, 414 S.W.2d 423 (Tex. 1967). The trial court in this case has ordered a trial on the merits, indicating that all issues are not resolved. Consequently the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction.

Summaries of

Jordan v. Jordan

Supreme Court of Texas

Jun 8, 1995

907 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1995)

holding that a bill of review which sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of the case on the merits is interlocutory and not appealable

Summary of this case from In re Moreno

concluding that court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review order setting aside prior judgment on petition for bill of review but not disposing of case on merits

Summary of this case from Patrick O'Connor & Assocs., L.P. v. Wang Inv. Networks, Inc.

In Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995), the supreme court held that "[a] bill of review [that] sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of the case on the merits is interlocutory and not appealable."

Summary of this case from Cepeda v. Dietze

In Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995), the Texas Supreme Court held that a trial court's order that granted a petition for bill of review but did not dispose of the case on the merits is interlocutory and not appealable.

Summary of this case from State v. Taylor

In Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995), the Texas Supreme Court held that a trial court's order that granted a bill of review but did not dispose of the case on the merits is interlocutory and not appealable. See also Hartford Underwriters Ins. v. Mills, 110 S.W.3d 588, 591 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).

Summary of this case from City of Kerrville v. Taylor

Summary of this case from Interest of M.R.R., 04-11-00484-CV

Summary of this case from Retzlaff v. Morales

explaining that court of appeals had no jurisdiction over appeal because an order that sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of the case on the merits is interlocutory and not appealable

Summary of this case from Weaver v. Castellano

In Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995), the supreme court held that "[a] bill of review which sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of the case on the merits is interlocutory and not appealable."

Summary of this case from In re Interest of B.F.A.

In Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1995), our supreme court considered a challenge to an order similar to the one at issue here.

Summary of this case from State v. 1998 Cadillac 4 Door

Jordan v. Jordan

Summary

Opinion

Jordan v. Jordan

Jordan v. Jordan

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Jordan v. Jordan

Summary

Opinion

Jordan v. Jordan

Jordan v. Jordan

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations