Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2024

Tae Hollenbeck v. Cody Villareal, Jackie Villareal, and Donna Adams Morgan

Tae Hollenbeck v. Cody Villareal, Jackie Villareal, and Donna Adams Morgan
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided August 14, 2024

Tae Hollenbeck v. Cody Villareal, Jackie Villareal, and Donna Adams Morgan

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00337-CV

Tae Hollenbeck, Appellant v. Cody Villareal, Jackie Villareal, and Donna Adams Morgan, Appellees

FROM THE 478TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 24DFAM346074 THE HONORABLE WADE NICHOLAS FAULKNER, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tae Hollenbeck filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s ruling denying his request for a protective order. On July 19, 2024, the Clerk of this Court sent to the parties a letter stating that it appeared that we did not have jurisdiction over the case and asking the parties to file a written reply by July 29, 2024, explaining how we have jurisdiction over the case. No response has been filed.

Hollenbeck’s notice of appeal reflects that there is no final order or judgment that is being appealed and that, instead, the ruling at issue was listed in the trial court’s docket sheet.

“Our jurisdiction is fundamental and invoked only upon the timely filing of a notice of appeal from a final judgment disposing of all claims and parties or such interlocutory orders as the legislature deems appealable.” Robinson v. American Bank of Tex., No. 05-11-01024-CV, 2012 WL 1647763, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 9, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (listing authorized interlocutory appeals). “Docket sheet entries reflecting the trial court’s rulings do not invoke our jurisdiction.” In re I.T.G.D., No. 05-10- 00723-CV, 2011 WL 1459794, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 18, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Bryan v. Watumull, 230 S.W.3d 503, 507 n.2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (explaining that docket sheet entry generally forms no part of record which may be considered and cannot be used to show existence of order or judgment).

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal and dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See In re I.T.G.D., 2011 WL 1459794, at *1; Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, 43.2(f).

__________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker, Justice Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Theofanis Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: August 14, 2024

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