Opinion
NUMBER 13-18-00348-CV
01-24-2019
AMY WILSON, APPELLANT, v. CREEDWOOD VILLAGE APARTMENTS, APPELLEE.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Travis County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
Appellant, Amy Wilson, proceeding pro se, appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of her former landlord, appellee Creekwood Village Apartments. We dismiss the appeal as stated herein.
This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.).
On June 19, 2018, appellant filed her notice of appeal from a judgment awarding possession and unpaid rent to appellee. On June 28, 2018, this Court advised appellant that her notice of appeal was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and requested that she correct the defects within thirty days or the matter would be referred to the Court for further action. On July 16, 2018, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file an amended notice of appeal. On August 9, 2018, appellant notified us that her address had changed. On August 14, 2018, this Court granted appellant an extension of time until August 29, 2018 to file the amended notice of appeal.
On August 22, 2018, the Court sent appellant correspondence at her new address, including postal money orders returnable to appellant, but this mail was returned unclaimed to the Court.
On September 6, 2018, the Court notified appellant that the defects in her notice of appeal had not been corrected and informed her that if the defects were not corrected within ten days the appeal would be dismissed. This notice was returned unclaimed to the Court on October 5, 2018.
In the interim, on September 20, 2018, appellant filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. This Court abated and remanded the appeal. We requested the trial court to hold a hearing to determine, inter alia, whether appellant desired to prosecute this appeal, whether appellant was entitled to appointed counsel, and what orders, if any should be entered to manage the case. We directed the trial court to appoint counsel to represent appellant in this appeal if it determined that appellant did want to continue the appeal and that appellant was indigent and entitled to court-appointed counsel.
On September 24, 2018, the trial court sent the parties notice that a hearing would be held on October 4, 2018 to address the foregoing matters. The trial court provided notice to appellant by regular mail and certified mail at both her former and current addresses. Appellee appeared through counsel, however, appellant did not appear. The trial court's bailiff called for appellant outside the courtroom, but she did not respond. The trial court noted that appellant was not present in the courtroom despite being notified of the hearing. After further proceedings, the trial court stated that "the matter is closed as far as this Court is concerned."
On October 9, 2018, the court signed an order concluding, in relevant part, that "appellant does not wish to prosecute the appeal" and that "an [o]rder should be entered dismissing [a]ppellant's appeal."
On October 12, 2018, appellant filed a letter with the county clerk which stated only "Appeal the judges [sic] order for a hearing on 10/04/18. Received the information on 10/12/18."
Appellant's filing with the county clerk purports to be an appeal of the trial court's order setting a hearing pursuant to the remand order issued by our Court. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. See City of Watauga v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides for such an appeal. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007); see City of Watauga, 434 S.W.3d at 588; Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). To the extent that appellant may be seeking to appeal this order, we conclude that it is a is a non-appealable interlocutory order over which we lack jurisdiction.
On October 19, 2018, this Court reinstated the appeal, and on October 23, 2018, this Court again notified appellant that her notice of appeal was defective and had not been corrected. The Court warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the notice of appeal was not corrected within ten days. This notification was sent to appellant by certified and regular mail. The certified letter was returned to this Court marked "return to sender," "unclaimed," and "unable to forward."
On December 4, 2018, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the foregoing sequence of events. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.
Appellant has not provided this Court with a forwarding address, corrected the defects in her notice of appeal, or taken any other action to prosecute this appeal. An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c). The Court, having considered the documents on file, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. R. 37.3; id. R. 42.3(b), (c). Accordingly, we deny appellant's motion to appoint counsel, which was previously carried with the case. We grant appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal. We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and because the appellant has failed to comply with requirements of the appellate rules and notices requesting a response or other action from this Court.
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice Delivered and filed this the 24th day of January, 2019.