Opinion
No. 04-04-00835-CV
Delivered and Filed: January 26, 2005.
Appeal from the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2000-CI-06866, Honorable David Berchelmann, Jr., Judge Presiding.
The Honorable Lori Massey is the presiding judge of the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Honorable David Berchelmann, Jr. entered the order granting Woollacott's petition for bill of review.
Sitting: Karen ANGELINI, Justice, SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice, PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
On November 21, 1997, the trial court entered an "Order Establishing the Parent-Child Relationship." In the order, the trial court found that Russell Woollacott was the father of B.F.A. and ordered Woollacott to pay child support. On May 9, 2000, Russelll Woollacott filed an original petition for bill of review in the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, a different court from the one that had entered the original order. Woollacott alleged that "due to medical complications," he had been unable to appear and be heard on November 21, 1997. According to Woollacott, as a result, the trial court ordered him to pay child support payments that did not comply with statutory guidelines. Thus, in his bill of review, Wollacott requested that the trial court set aside the prior child support order and grant a new trial on the issue of child support.
On May 3, 2004, the trial court granted Wollacott's bill of review and set aside the November 21, 1997 order "except as to the judgment that [Wollacott] is the father of [B.F.A.]." On November 19, 2004, the Office of the Attorney General filed a notice of restricted appeal and a motion for extension of time to file a notice of restricted appeal.
In Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995), the supreme court held that "[a] bill of review which sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of the case on the merits is interlocutory and not appealable." (citing Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1990)). As such, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d at 472.
In its motion for extension of time to file its notice of restricted appeal, the Office of the Attorney General argues that we have jurisdiction pursuant to our holding in Pursley v. Ussery, 937 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ). We disagree. In Pursley, 937 S.W.2d at 567, the trial court granted the petition for bill of review and then entered a new final judgment. Thus, the trial court had "disposed of the case on the merits." See Jordan, 907 S.W.2d at 472. And, because the case had been disposed of on the merits, the judgment was final and appealable. See id. Here, however, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court has disposed of the case on the merits. The trial court's order granting the bill of review is, therefore, interlocutory and not appealable. See id.
We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss the Office of the Attorney General's motion for extension of time to file a notice of restricted appeal for lack of jurisdiction.