TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00718-CV

Design Tech Homes of Texas, LLC, Appellant v. John Siemens and Vashti Siemens (As Co-Trustees of the John Siemens and Vashti Siemens Living Revocable Trust), Appellees

FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. C2022-2039D, THE HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 5, 2025, Design Tech Homes of Texas, LLC filed a notice of appeal, attempting to appeal from the trial court’s August 22, 2025 order granting John Siemens and Vashti Siemens’ motion for appointment of arbitrator and appointing Judge Brenda Chapman as the arbitrator in this case. 1 Upon initial review, on October 17, 2025, the Clerk of this Court sent Design Tech a letter informing it that this Court appears to lack jurisdiction over the appeal because “[u]nless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally only have jurisdiction over

1 This Court previously determined that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Design Tech’s motion to compel arbitration and reversed and remanded the case to the trial court.

See Design Tech Homes of Tex., LLC v. Siemens as Co-Trustees of John Siemens & Vashti Siemens Living Revocable Tr., No. 03-23-00735-CV, 2025 WL 62967, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 10, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.). final judgments.” CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011). The order that Design Tech attempts to appeal is not a final judgment, and “Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.016 does not allow an interlocutory appeal of this type of order.” Id. at 452 (discussing appellate jurisdiction of interlocutory order appointing arbitrator). In response to this letter, Design Tech requested additional time to supplement the reporter’s records filed in this appeal. The Court granted that request, and Design Tech responded by requesting that the Court incorporate reporter’s records from the previous appeal. Design Tech has not responded to the jurisdictional inquiry or otherwise attempted to explain how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this appeal.

Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over the order Design Tech attempts to appeal, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Id. (appeals court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeal of order appointing arbitrator); see Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________ Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Theofanis Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: November 7, 2025