Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2009

MRI Country Bend Investment Fund, L.P. and MRI River Glen Investment Fund, L.P. v. Capitol Painting & Construction, Inc.

MRI Country Bend Investment Fund, L.P. and MRI River Glen Investment Fund, L.P. v. Capitol Painting & Construction, Inc.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided July 23, 2009

MRI Country Bend Investment Fund, L.P. and MRI River Glen Investment Fund, L.P. v. Capitol Painting & Construction, Inc.

Opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                               COURT OF APPEALS

                                                 SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                FORT WORTH

 

 

                                        NO. 2-09-174-CV

 

 

MRI COUNTRY BEND INVESTMENT                                      APPELLANTS

FUND, L.P. AND MRI RIVER GLEN

INVESTMENT FUND, L.P.

                                                   V.

 

CAPITOL PAINTING &                                                             APPELLEE

CONSTRUCTION, INC.

                                              ------------

 

         FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

 

                                              ------------

 

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

 

                                              ------------


Appellants MRI Country Bend Investment Fund, L.P. and MRI River Glen Investment Fund, L.P. attempt to appeal from the trial court=s May 7, 2009, order denying their motion to dissolve pre-judgment writs of garnishment.  Appellee Capitol Painting & Construction, Inc. moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the May 7 order is not an appealable interlocutory order and seeks damages as the prevailing party in a frivolous appeal.[2]  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment.[3]  Interlocutory orders are not appealable unless they fall within the exceptions provided by the legislature in section 51.014 of the civil practice and remedies code.[4]  None of those exceptions apply here.  Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal and must dismiss the case.[5]  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and appellee=s motion for sanctions.

 

PER CURIAM

 

PANEL:  CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

 

DELIVERED:  July 23, 2009


[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

[2]See Tex. R. App. P. 45 (stating in part that A[i]f the court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may . . . award each prevailing party just damages@).

[3]See Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

[4]Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 51.014 (Vernon 2008).

[5]Guajardo v. Conwell, 46 S.W.3d 862, 863_64 (Tex. 2001) (dismissal of appeal of interlocutory order); Anderson v. Long, 52 S.W.3d 385, 386 (Tex. App._Fort Worth 2001, no pet.) (same).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑