Opinion
06-20-00034-CV
07-16-2020
CONNIE BRENNERS, Appellant v. TIMOTHY RAY GREEN, Appellee
On Appeal from the 202nd District Court Bowie County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20C0021-202 Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Charles J. Paternostro has attempted to appeal from a May 18, 2020, order granting Timothy Ray Green's motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 13; TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 10.01. The issue before this Court is whether we have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. We conclude that we do not and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
As we have previously stated,
This Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments or certain specified interlocutory orders. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2005); Onstad v. Wright, 54 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. denied). Generally, an order imposing monetary sanctions is reviewed on appeal from the final judgment in the case. See Onstad, 54 S.W.3d at 804; In re Onstad, 20 S.W.3d 731, 733 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, orig. proceeding).Schoolcraft v. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., No. 06-05-00076-CV, 2005 WL 3487849, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Dec. 22, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.); see Matassarin v. Odiorne, No. 04-01-00498-CV, 2001 WL 1479258, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 21, 2001, no pet.) (per curiam) ("An order for monetary sanctions rendered in connection with an underlying lawsuit is interlocutory if it does not dispose of all parties and claims in the lawsuit."); Kamel v. Advocare Int'l, L.P., No. 05-15-01295-CV, 2016 WL 836809, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 4, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("A sanctions order that does not dispose of all the parties and issues is neither an appealable final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order.").
Our review of this record revealed no final judgment in this case. The trial court's order imposing sanctions does not dispose of all issues pending in the trial court. Further, this interlocutory order does not appear to be one over which the Legislature has granted us appellate jurisdiction.
By letter dated July 9, 2020, we informed Paternostro of this potential defect in our jurisdiction and afforded him the opportunity to demonstrate proper grounds for our retention of the appeal. Paternostro filed a response to our letter that failed to demonstrate proper grounds for our retention of the appeal.
In light of the foregoing, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Scott E. Stevens
Justice Date Submitted: July 15, 2020
Date Decided: July 16, 2020