Harriett Nicholson v. the Bank of New York Mellon Fka the Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWMBS, Inc., CWMBS Reforming Loan Remic Trust Certificates Series 2005-R2, Melanie Cowan, Bank of America, N.A., and ReconTrust Company, N.A. ( 2019 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-18-00035-CV
___________________________
HARRIETT NICHOLSON, Appellant
V.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CWMBS, INC., CWMBS
REFORMING LOAN REMIC TRUST CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-R2,
MELANIE COWAN, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AND RECONTRUST
COMPANY, N.A., Appellees
On Appeal from the 342nd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 342-262692-12
Before Bassel, Kerr, and Pittman, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Harriett Nicholson attempts to appeal an October 26, 2017 order
labeled “Final Judgment.” On January 10, 2019, we notified Nicholson of our
concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the order does not appear
to be a final judgment that disposes of all parties. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39
S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that a judgment is final for purposes of
appeal if it (1) actually disposes of all claims and parties or (2) states with unmistakable
clarity that it is a final judgment). We informed Nicholson that her appeal could be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless she or any party desiring to continue the
appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App.
P. 42.3(a), 44.3. In response, Nicholson filed an unopposed amended motion to abate
the appeal, claiming that the October 26, 2017 order is final but that it is erroneous
and seeking to have the appeal abated “until the remaining claims, parties, and issues
are resolved in the trial court.” Because the response does not show grounds for
continuing the appeal, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.1 See Tex. R.
App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 200.
Per Curiam
Delivered: January 31, 2019
1
Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we take no action on
Nicholson’s “Unopposed Amended Motion To Abate Appeal.” See Elliott v. Deutsche
Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 02-16-00421-CV, 2017 WL 526315, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth Feb. 9, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Because we lack jurisdiction over this
appeal, we take no action on Appellants’ ‘Motion for Stay of Action on Appeal.’”).
2