Opinion issued December 19, 2024

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00523-CV ——————————— JEREMY DAVID OLUMA, Appellant V. MAITE OLUMA, Appellee

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 24-CCV-074846

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Jeremy David Oluma, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s July 3, 2024 order sustaining Appellee Maite Oluma’s contest against Appellant’s statement of indigency status.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. “[C]ourts always have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction.”

Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 146 n.14 (Tex. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Royal Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Ragsdale, 273 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (jurisdiction fundamental in nature and cannot be ignored). Whether we have jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review de novo. See Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007). If this case is an appeal over which we have no jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed. Ragsdale, 273 S.W.3d at 763.

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order only if a statute explicitly authorizes an interlocutory appeal. CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); Lehman, 39 S.W.3d at 195; see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). “The trial court’s order denying indigency status is not a final judgment, nor is there any statute or rule authorizing an appeal from such an order.” Covington v. State, No. 03-24- 00520-CV, 2024 WL 4643932, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin [3rd Dist.] Oct. 31, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing In re K.J.M., No. 2-08-038-CV, 2008 WL 703960, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 13, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction party’s attempted appeal of trial court’s order sustaining contest to her

claim of indigence and noting by contrast that trial court’s indigency ruling within context of already pending appeal is appealable pursuant to In re Arroyo, 988 S.W.2d 737, 738-39 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding))).

On October 3, 2024, the Clerk of this Court advised Appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction unless, within ten days of the date of the notice, he filed a written response demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction over his appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant did not respond.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Gunn.