in the Guardianship of Hortencia T. Vara, an Incapacitated Person ( 2019 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-19-00473-CV
IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HORTENCIA T. VARA, an Incapacitated Person
From the County Court, Uvalde County, Texas
Trial Court No. 7058-18
Honorable William R. Mitchell, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 14, 2019
DISMISSED
Appellant Olivia Sosa filed a notice of appeal indicating her intent to appeal the
interlocutory “Order Compelling the Deposition of Olivia Sosa, Order Holding Olivia Sosa in
Criminal Contempt of Court, Order Compelling Olivia Sosa to Produce Proposed Ward and Order
Sanctioning Olivia Sosa and Joshua Carpenter” signed by the trial court on June 26, 2019 in the
underlying guardianship proceeding. This court does not have jurisdiction to review contempt
orders by direct appeal. Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655, 655 (Tex. 1985); In re C.S.K., No.
04-17-00587-CV, 2017 WL 5759368, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 29, 2017) (mem. op.,
per curiam); In re Guardianship of Bays, 355 S.W.3d 715, 721-22 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011,
no pet.) (court of appeals had no jurisdiction over direct appeal of contempt order holding objector
to guardianship proceeding in contempt and ordering the return of $300,000 of proposed ward’s
04-19-00473-CV
money). Contempt proceedings are not appealable because they involve a court’s enforcement of
its own orders and “are not concerned with disposing of all claims and parties before the court, as
are judgments.” In re Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913, 915-16 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 2007, orig. proceeding). “Contempt orders may only be reviewed by an application for a
writ of habeas corpus, if the contemnor has been confined, or by a petition for a writ of mandamus,
if the contemnor has not been confined.” In re C.S.K., 2017 WL 5759368, at *1 (citing Rosser v.
Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962, 962 (Tex. 1995)). Similarly, a mandamus proceeding is the proper
method to immediately challenge an order compelling discovery. See In re Liberty Cnty. Mut. Ins.
Co., 557 S.W.3d 851, 855 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, orig. proceeding) (order
compelling deposition); see also In re Methodist Primary Care Group, 553 S.W.3d 709, 714 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, orig. proceeding) (order compelling production of documents).
Therefore, in an order issued July 18, 2019, we instructed appellant to show cause in
writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
PER CURIAM
-2-