Opinion
No. 05-07-01573-CV
Opinion Filed January 16, 2009.
On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 06-10949-M.
Before Justices MORRIS, FRANCIS, and MURPHY.
Opinion By Justice FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Terry James appeals the trial court's orders denying his motion for sanctions and granting Norilyn Brown's motion to declare James a vexatious litigant. In three issues, James claims Brown failed to meet her burden of establishing James is a vexatious litigant, James proved by a preponderance of the evidence Brown's pleading was "patently" frivolous, and the trial court erred in refusing to file requested findings of fact and conclusions of law. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
James filed his original petition for property damages and personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Brown answered and filed a counterclaim alleging James was negligent in causing the accident. James then filed a motion for sanctions on the ground that Brown's counterclaim was groundless. James also alleged it was filed in bad faith, for the purpose of harassment and unnecessary delay, and to increase the cost of litigation. The trial court denied James's motion. Thereafter, Brown filed a motion to declare James a vexatious litigant. On November 21, 2007, the trial court granted the motion, declared James a vexatious litigant, and ordered James to pay security of $5000 within 14 days of the date of the order. Although Brown filed a motion to dismiss the case, the trial court took no action. The record does not include a dismissal order or a final judgment. James now appeals the trial court's order denying his motion for sanctions and the subsequent order finding him to be a vexatious litigant.
Appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and only those interlocutory orders deemed appealable by the Texas Legislature. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 811 (Tex. 1993). See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 15.003, 51.014(a), (d) (Vernon 2008 Supp. 2008). A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195.
In this case, the Dallas County district clerk confirmed there is no order of dismissal or final judgment on the merits. And there is no statutory exception that allows James to appeal either interlocutory order. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; City of Houston, 849 S.W.2d at 811. Accordingly, we dismiss James's appeal for want of jurisdiction.