Karen Silvio v. Jo Lynn Boggan ( 2015 )

Opinion issued March 31, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00987-CV
———————————
KAREN KRISTINE SILVIO, Appellant
V.
JO LYNN BOGGAN, Appellee
On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 370,090
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Karen Kristine Silvio, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s
“Order Denying Defendant the time necessary time [sic] to hire Legal
Representation in Accordance to Tex. R. Civ. P. 252, which was denied on
November 18, 2014.” We dismiss the appeal.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal in the trial court on December 8, 2014. On
December 10, 2014, the trial court clerk filed a letter of assignment in this Court,
stating that no judgment has been signed in this case. Further, on January 5, 2014,
the trial court clerk notified this Court that the trial court clerk was “in receipt of
the notice of appeal, dated December 8, 2014[,] filed by Karen Kristine Silvio” and
that “no order or judgment has been filed or signed regarding this matter.”
On February 26, 2015, the Clerk of this Court issued a Notice informing
appellant that this appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless
appellant filed a response within 10 days of the date of the Notice explaining how
this Court had jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant did not adequately respond
to the Notice.
Because “no order or judgment has been filed or signed regarding this
matter,” there is no final order or judgment from which appellant may appeal. See,
e.g., Broussard v. Bank of N.Y., No. 01-14-00214-CV, 2014 WL 3887720, at *1
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 7, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); Crum v. State,
No. 04-13-00731-CR, 2013 WL 6210245, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov.
27, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Further, even if there
was an order, we lack jurisdiction over immediate appeals from interlocutory
orders unless jurisdiction has been expressly provided by statute, and an order
denying appellant “the time necessary . . . to hire Legal Representation in
2
Accordance to Tex. R. Civ. P. 252” is not an interlocutory order for which a statute
has expressly authorized an appeal. See Broussard, 2014 WL 3887720, at *1;
Crum, 2013 WL 6210245, at *1.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.
CIV. P. 42.3(a). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd.
3