Diane Bozanich Ratley v. William David Ratley

In the Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-21-00166-CV ___________________________

DIANE BOZANICH RATLEY, Appellant

V. WILLIAM DAVID RATLEY, Appellee On Appeal from the 362nd District Court

Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 19-9876-362

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

MEMORANDUM OPINION In this divorce case, Diane Bozanich Ratley attempts to appeal from the trial court’s “Order on Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc” correcting the trial court’s “Order for Appointment of Realtor,” which appointed a realtor to list and sell the Ratleys’ marital residence. Because neither order appeared to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, we notified appellant of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. We informed her that unless she or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response within ten days showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we would dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Ten days have passed, and we have received no response.

We have jurisdiction to consider appeals only from final judgments and from certain interlocutory orders made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a). Unless a statutory exception applies, an order that does not dispose of all pending parties and claims remains interlocutory and unappealable until a final judgment is signed. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; In re Roxsane R., 249 S.W.3d 764, 774–75 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, orig. proceeding).

Here, neither order is a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, and we thus dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice

Delivered: September 23, 2021