Opinion
13-24-00064-CV
04-11-2024
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF EDGARDO CASTILLO ROSALES AND ESMERALDA GARCIA
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 10 OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NORA L. LONGORIA, Justice
On January 16, 2024, appellant Edgardo Castillo Rosales a/k/a Edgardo Castillo filed a notice of appeal from an order granting a bill of review in favor of appellee Esmeralda Garcia. On February 7, 2024, the Clerk of this Court advised appellant that the order he was attempting to appeal was not appealable, directed him to correct this defect within ten days, if possible, and informed him that the appeal would be dismissed if this defect was not cured. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), (c). Appellant did not respond to the Clerk's directives.
"A bill of review which sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of all the issues of the case on the merits is interlocutory in nature and not a final judgment appealable to the court of appeals or the supreme court." Kiefer v. Touris, 197 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705, 705 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam)); see Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam); In re D. N.C. , 656 S.W.3d 764, 766 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2022, no pet.); Weiss v. Kenneth D. Eichner, P.C., 632 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.); In re Estrada, 492 S.W.3d 42, 46 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi- Edinburg 2016, orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal and the record, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. The trial court's order granting the bill of review sets aside and vacates the trial court's previous judgment, reopens the case, and grants a new trial. The order does not dispose of all the issues of the case on the merits and accordingly, is interlocutory in nature and not a final, appealable judgment. See Kiefer, 197 S.W.3d at 302; Jordan, 907 S.W.2d at 472; In re D. N.C. , 656 S.W.3d at 766. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.