Nos. 05-10-00020-CV, 05-10-00080-CV
Opinion Filed March 10, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH TEX. R. APP. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. DF-04-17651-S.
Before Justices RICHTER, LANG-MIERS, and MURPHY.
Opinion by Justice RICHTER.
Appellant filed two notices of appeal challenging different orders of the trial court entered in the same case. Because the notice of appeal in cause no. 05-10-00080-CV, on its face, reflected appellant was challenging a non-appealable order, we directed the parties to file briefs addressing our jurisdiction. Appellant filed a brief addressing our jurisdiction in cause number 05-10-00080-CV. Appellee responded that we have no jurisdiction in either of the above appeals for the same reason — the appeals are from interlocutory trial court orders. We agree we have no jurisdiction and dismiss the appeals.
One notice of appeal was docketed as cause no. 05-10-00020-CV. The second notice of appeal was docketed as cause no. 05-10-00080-CV. Ordinarily, the Court would consolidate the two appeals. Because of our disposition of these appeals, however, we do not consolidate them.
BACKGROUND
Appellant and appellee were divorced by final judgment in December 2007. An appeal was taken from that judgment, which was ultimately dismissed on the parties' motion in 2008. See Williams v. Williams, No. 13-08-00252-CV, 2008 WL 2209205 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi May 29, 2008, no pet.) (per curiam). Appellee filed a petition for enforcement of property division, the fourth amended version of which is the live pleading pending before the trial court. On December 8, 2009, the trial judge signed an order granting appellee's request for leave to amend pleadings. Appellant has filed several motions to recuse the trial court judge, all of which have been denied. The order denying the most recent motion to recuse was signed on December 28, 2009.APPLICABLE LAW
Appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and such interlocutory orders as the legislature deems appealable. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Ruiz v. Ruiz, 946 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1997, no writ). Appellate jurisdiction is never presumed. Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., No. 05-07-01269-CV, 2009 WL 4827862, *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas Dec. 16, 2009, no pet. h.) (op. on reh'g). Unless the record affirmatively shows the propriety of appellate jurisdiction, we must dismiss. Id.ANALYSIS
In cause no. 05-10-00020-CV, appellant is challenging the trial court's December 8, 2009 order. That order is an interlocutory order granting a motion to amend pleadings. It does not finally dispose of all of the issues and parties pending before the trial court. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 200. Appellate cites no statutory authority, nor are we aware of any, that provides for an interlocutory appeal of an order granting a motion to amend pleadings. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over cause no. 05-10-00020-CV. In cause no. 05-10-00080-CV, appellant is challenging the December 28, 2009 order denying her motion to recuse the trial judge. Interlocutory orders denying a motion to recuse are not reviewable by interlocutory appeal. See In re Union Pac. Resources Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428-29 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). Rather, such orders may be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment. See id.; see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(f). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over cause no. 05-10-00080-CV. CONCLUSION
Because there is no final judgment and the challenged orders are non-appealable interlocutory orders, we have no jurisdiction over these appeals. We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. PGPage 1