TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00092-CV

Philip O. Emiabata and Sylvia Emiabata, Appellants v. Washington Mutual Bank, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-GN-07-003748, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellee Washington Mutual Bank brought an expedited foreclosure proceeding against appellants Philip O. Emiabata and Sylvia Emiabata. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 736. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding, which the district court denied. This appeal followed.1 On April 28, 2008, Washington Mutual filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

Washington Mutual argues that this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the district court’s interlocutory order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss. We agree. Our appellate jurisdiction is limited to final judgments and those limited classes of interlocutory orders over which the legislature has given us jurisdiction. Majeski v. Estate of Majeski, 163 S.W.3d 102, 105 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.) (citing Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998)). The legislature has

In addition to filing a notice of appeal, appellants filed a motion to stay the foreclosure.

On March 14, 2008, this Court overruled the motion to stay. not given us jurisdiction over an order denying a motion to dismiss an expedited foreclosure proceeding. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2007) (listing classes of interlocutory orders from which person may appeal); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 736(8)(A) (providing that granting or denial of foreclosure application pursuant to rule 736 “is not an appealable order.”).

We grant Washington Mutual’s motion to dismiss and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

____________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: May 20, 2008