Because it appeared that the order was a non-appealable interlocutory order, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Minnfee v. Lexington, No. 04-09-00770-CV, 2010 WL 381367, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 3, 2010, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order on motion to rule for costs). Appellant filed a response in which he requested that we abate the appeal pending the trial court's compliance with Rule 143 and the issuance of a delinquent dismissal order and that we allow his notice of appeal to become effective on the date of the dismissal order.
Because it appeared that the order was a non-appealable interlocutory order, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Minnfee v. Lexington, No. 04-09-00770-CV, 2010 WL 381367, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 3, 2010, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order on motion to rule for costs). Appellant filed a response in which he requested that we abate the appeal pending the trial court's compliance with Rule 143 and the issuance of a delinquent dismissal order and that we allow his notice of appeal to become effective on the date of the dismissal order.
It appears from the record before us that no final judgment has been signed in this case and that the trial court's order granting the motion to rule for costs is an interlocutory order. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (West 2008) (listing a number of interlocutory orders that may be appealed); Minnfee v. Lexington, No. 04-09-00770-CV, 2010 WL 381367, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 3, 2010, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order on motion to rule for costs). Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to show cause in writing within 30 days of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
We know of no authority authorizing an interlocutory appeal from an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence for trial court costs, as here. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2012); see, e.g., Minnfee v. Lexington, No. 04-09-00770-CV, 2010 WL 381367, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 3, 2010, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order on motion to rule for costs); Aguilar v. Texas La Fiesta Auto Sales LLC, No. 01-08-00653-CV, 2009 WL 1562838, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 4, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order sustaining contest to affidavit of indigence for trial court costs). We notified the parties of the Court's intent to dismiss the appeal unless appellant filed a response demonstrating this Court's jurisdiction.
Appellant cites no authority, and we have found none, providing for an interlocutory appeal to be taken from this order. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (West 2008); see, e.g., Minnfee v. Lexington, No. 04-09-00770-CV, 2010 WL 381367, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 3, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order on motion to rule for costs); Aguilar v. Texas La Fiesta Auto Sales LLC, No. 01-08-00653-CV, 2009 WL 1562838, at *1 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] June 4, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order sustaining contest to affidavit of indigence for trial court costs). We may review a challenge to an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence only when it is made as part of a pending appeal from a final judgment or other appealable order.
Appellant cites no authority, and we have found none, providing for an interlocutory appeal to be taken from these orders. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (West 2008); see, e.g., Minnfee v. Lexington, No. 04-09-00770-CV, 2010 WL 381367, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 3, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order on motion to rule for costs); Aguilar v. Texas La Fiesta Auto Sales LLC, No. 01-08-00653-CV, 2009 WL 1562838, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 4, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order sustaining contest to affidavit of indigence for trial court costs). We may review a challenge to an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence only when it is made as part of a pending appeal from a final judgment or other appealable order.
Appellant cites no authority, and we have found none, providing for an interlocutory appeal to be taken from a trial court's order that appellant pay the costs of his suit. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2011); see, e.g., Minnfee v. Lexington, No. 04-09-00770-CV, 2010 WL 381367, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 3, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order on motion to rule for costs); Aguilar v. Texas La Fiesta Auto Sales LLC, No. 01-08-00653-CV, 2009 WL 1562838, at *1 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] June 4, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order sustaining contest to affidavit of indigence for trial court costs). We may review a challenge to an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence only when it is made as part of a pending appeal from a final judgment or other appealable order.
Appellant cites no authority, and we have found none, providing for an interlocutory appeal to be taken from these orders. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (West 2008); see, e.g., Minnfee v. Lexington, No. 04-09-00770-CV, 2010 WL 381367, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 3, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order on motion to rule for costs); Aguilar v. Texas La Fiesta Auto Sales LLC, No. 01-08-00653-CV, 2009 WL 1562838, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 4, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order sustaining contest to affidavit of indigence for trial court costs). We may review a challenge to an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence only when it is made as part of a pending appeal from a final judgment or other appealable order.
Appellant cites no authority, and we have found none, providing for an interlocutory appeal to be taken from this order. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (West 2008); see, e.g., Minnfee v. Lexington, No. 04-09-00770-CV, 2010 WL 381367, at *1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Feb. 3, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order on motion to rule for costs); Aguilar v. Texas La Fiesta Auto Sales LLC, No. 01-08-00653-CV, 2009 WL 1562838, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 4, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order sustaining contest to affidavit of indigence for trial court costs). On September 8, 2011, the Court notified the parties of its intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating this court's jurisdiction on or before September 19, 2011.
Appellant cites no authority, and we have found none, providing for an interlocutory appeal to be taken these orders. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (West 2008); see, e.g., Minnfee v. Lexington, No. 04-09-00770-CV, 2010 WL 381367, at *1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Feb. 3, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order on motion to rule for costs); Aguilar v. Texas La Fiesta Auto Sales LLC, No. 01-08-00653-CV, 2009 WL 1562838, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 4, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order sustaining contest to affidavit of indigence for trial court costs). We may review a challenge to an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence only when it is made as part of a pending appeal from a final judgment or other appealable order.