Opinion
No. 04-15-00632-CV
05-05-2016
CITY OF KERRVILLE and State of Texas, Appellants v. Milton E. TAYLOR, Appellee
From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15148A
Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
On February 20, 2015, Appellee Milton E. Taylor filed an original petition for bill of review, requesting that a default judgment be set aside or vacated in a forfeiture proceeding. On October 5, 2015, the trial court signed an order granting Taylor's petition for bill of review. On October 15, 2015, the State of Texas filed a notice of appeal, stating that it intends to appeal from the trial court's order granting the petitioner's bill of review.
In Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995), the Texas Supreme Court held that a trial court's order that granted a bill of review but did not dispose of the case on the merits is interlocutory and not appealable. See also Hartford Underwriters Ins. v. Mills, 110 S.W.3d 588, 591 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.). Thus, the supreme court held that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d at 472.
In this case, the clerk's record reflects that the trial court granted the bill of review, thus setting aside the default judgment in the forfeiture proceeding. However, nothing in the clerk's record reflects that a final determination regarding the forfeiture action has been made by the trial court. See Retzlaff v. Mendieta-Morales, No. 04-09-00582-CV, 2009 WL 4692681, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.) (holding that the trial court's granting of summary judgment in a bill of review action was not a final, appealable judgment because the arguments brought in the summary judgment motion concerned "whether the bill of review should be granted and whether the prior judgment should be set aside," and "did not dispose of the case on the merits"). Thus, it appears that the trial court's order is interlocutory and not appealable.
We, therefore, ORDER appellant to show cause in writing by May 20, 2016 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
It is so ORDERED on May 5, 2016.
PER CURIAM
ATTESTED TO: /s/_________
Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court