Opinion
NO. 01-10-00195-CV
01-12-2012
QIAN ZHAO, Appellant v. JOANNE TERRY, MANAGER OF WILCREST PARK TOWNHOME ASSOCIATION INC. AND SUNDOWN AUTO STORAGE, Appellees
On Appeal from the 55th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2009-71863
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an attempted appeal from an order sustaining a contest to appellant's affidavit of indigence for trial court costs and ordering that appellant pay the costs of his suit in the trial court. A partial clerk's record was ordered so this court could determine its jurisdiction. The record was filed July 15, 2010.
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if authorized by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001).
Here, the record reveals that no final judgment has been entered in this pending case. Both the trial court's order refusing to waive the costs based on appellant's affidavit and the trial court's order that appellant pay the costs of his suit are interlocutory orders. 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. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1; In re Arroyo, 988 S.W.2d 737, 738-39 (Tex. 1998).
On February 28, 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 March 10, 2011. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant did not adequately respond.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.