Capitol Toys, Inc., Toy Maker, Inc., Aviation Dynamics, Inc., and Brett Salter v. Rodika Salter ( 2006 )

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 16, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 16, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00925-CV

____________

CAPITOL TOYS, INC., TOY MAKER, INC.,

AVIATION DYNAMICS, INC., and BRETT SALTER, Appellants

V.

RODIKA SALTER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2005-64898

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a foreign judgment signed August 14, 2006.  Appellants= notice of appeal was filed September 12, 2006. 

Ordinarily, a debtor may appeal the denial of a motion to vacate a judgment in a proceeding to enforce a foreign judgment under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act because a judgment remains in place.  See, e.g., Cash Register Sales and Servs. of Houston, Inc. v. Copelco Capital, Inc., 62 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). With certain exceptions, however, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment or order.  Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).  A judgment or order is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all parties and all issues in a case, so that no further action is required by the trial court, except as necessary to carry out the decree.  Id. The trial court=s order in this case specifically reserved for further consideration all other pending issues, counterclaims, and defenses.  Therefore, the order is interlocutory.  See Wilcox v. St. Mary=s Univ. of San Antonio, Inc., 501 S.W.2d 875, 876 (Tex. 1973) (holding that judgment or order that expressly reserves issue for later adjudication is interlocutory).  We find no statutory authority for an interlocutory appeal of this type of order. To the contrary, a district court order confirming registration of a foreign child support order, but expressly declining to rule on the order=s enforceability, is not final and appealable.  Cowan v. Moreno, 903 S.W.2d 119, 124 (Tex. App.CAustin 1995, no pet.). 

On October 25, 2006, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court=s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).  The court specifically requested to be provided with any authority permitting an interlocutory appeal of this order.  Appellants filed no response.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 16, 2006.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Seymore.