Opinion
03-24-00132-CV
05-09-2024
Billie O. Stone d/b/a Stobil Enterprise, Appellant v. Randolph Brooks Federal Credit Union, Appellee
FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. C2020-2024C, THE HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING
Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Kelly
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Thomas J. Baker, Justice
Billie O. Stone d/b/a/ Stobil Enterprise filed a notice of appeal on February 26, 2024. Stone's notice of appeal states that he requests to appeal "this Cause-of-Action (A Criminally Fraudulent Forged Instrument / FALSELY MADE)." On April 18, 2024, this Court requested a response from Stone by April 29, 2024, explaining how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this appeal because it appears from the Clerk's Record that there is no final order or judgment from which he attempts to appeal. This Court informed Stone that his appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless he timely responded, demonstrating this Court's jurisdiction over this appeal. The response that Stone filed has not done so.
As best we can understand his response, Stone contends that this Court's jurisdiction "covers the County" in which this lawsuit originated, in which lawsuit he seeks judicial review of a purportedly fraudulent document creating a lien on his property. See Tex. Gov't Code § 51.903 (authorizing property owner to seek judicial review of purportedly fraudulent lien instrument). Stone states in his response that "evidence [is] to be presented on APPEAL."
Stone also appears to complain about the trial court's failure to rule on his motion to declare the subject lien fraudulent, but the Clerk's Record reflects no attempts he has made to make the trial court aware of his motion or any request he has made that the court rule on the motion, and he has not sought mandamus relief on such purported failure. Cf. In re Rodriguez, No. 03-24-00146-CV, 2024 WL 1121020, at *1 (Tex. App.-Austin Mar. 15, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (outlining requirements for mandamus relief when trial court has refused to rule on pending motion).
In civil cases, Texas courts of appeals generally have jurisdiction over appeals only from final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.012. We also have jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory orders, but only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014. Additionally, appellate courts have jurisdiction over a trial court's ruling on a Government Code Section 51.903 motion. See Tex. Gov't Code § 51.903(c); In re Purported Lien or Claim Against 1124 N. Knowles Dr., Saginaw, Texas, 76179, No. 02-20-00246-CV, 2021 WL 1323429, at *2 (Tex. App -Fort Worth Apr. 8, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Stone has not demonstrated any basis for our jurisdiction over this appeal in that he has identified no final judgment or appealable interlocutory order from which he attempts to appeal, and the record does not reflect any trial-court ruling on his Section 51.903 motion. We therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal and accordingly dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction