Opinion
NO. 01-18-00362-CV
06-26-2018
MARY FRANCES LUNDGREN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE WILL OF LAWRENCE EDWARD LUNDGREN, AND JAY ANDREW LUNDGREN, Appellants v. CHRISTIAN STEWART LUNDGREN, Appellee
On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2 Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 141706-401
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Mary Frances Lundgren, Individually and as Trustee Under the Will of Lawrence Edward Lundgren, and pro se appellant, Jay Andrew Lundgren, both timely appealed from the trial court's summary judgment order, signed on April 5, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 26.1. On June 13, 2018, appellant Mary Frances Lundgren filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal because, after the trial court signed an order on June 7, 2018, which vacated the order on appeal, she no longer desires to pursue this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a)(2), 42.1(a)(1).
Because appellant Mary Frances Lundgren's motion only attached an uncertified copy of the order, the Clerk of this Court requested that the district clerk file a certified copy of the trial court's June 7, 2018 order granting the appellants' motion for rehearing and motion for new trial, which was filed on June 21, 2018.
Generally, this Court has civil appellate jurisdiction over final judgments or interlocutory orders specifically authorized as appealable by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 51.012, 51.014(a)(1)-(13) (West 2014); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). However, while this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal, after the trial court vacated the summary judgment order in question, that rendered this appeal moot because there is no longer an appealable final judgment or interlocutory order in the record. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.012; see, e.g., Zapata v. Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 01-15-00346-CV, 2015 WL 7737626, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 1, 2015, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (granting joint motion to dismiss appeal for want of jurisdiction after trial court vacated final judgment on appeal). "Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies." Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). Mootness deprives this Court of jurisdiction. See Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000). Thus, we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
Accordingly, we grant appellant Mary Frances Lundgren's motion and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
While the motion states that appellee Christian Lundgren is unopposed to the motion and that pro se appellant Jay Andrew Lundgren, who was listed as an intervenor in the trial court, has not responded as to whether he opposes the motion, this appeal must be dismissed regardless of any opposition because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2), 42.3(a).
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.