Cecil Adams and Maxine Adams v. Harris County and Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the First Court of Appeals
04-15-00287-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 10, 2015Background
- Appellants Cecil and Maxine Adams appealed a district court interlocutory order denying their motion to dismiss Harris County’s interpleader action. The interlocutory order was signed March 13, 2015.
- Appellants also have a separate pending appeal of an order granting Christopher Prine’s plea to the jurisdiction, which the Adams treat as a pending appeal relevant to Rule 29.6 invocation.
- Harris County moved to dismiss the Adams’ interlocutory appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the order denying dismissal is non-appealable.
- Harris County contends Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.6 does not apply because the previously appealed order (the plea to the jurisdiction) is a final judgment, not an appealable interlocutory order.
- Harris County further argues no statutory provision (including Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014) authorizes interlocutory appeals from denial of motions to dismiss interpleader actions, nor did the trial court authorize an otherwise non-appealable interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the interlocutory order denying dismissal of an interpleader is appealable | Adams: Court may review under Tex. R. App. P. 29.6 tied to their other pending appeal | Harris County: Rule 29.6 applies only when the pending appeal is from an appealable interlocutory order; here the other order is final; no statute authorizes this interlocutory appeal | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (order is non-appealable) |
| Whether Rule 29.6 grants supplemental interlocutory jurisdiction here | Adams: Rule 29.6 permits review of related interlocutory orders while an interlocutory appeal is pending | Harris County: The prerequisite is a pending appeal of an appealable interlocutory order; the pending appeal is a final judgment, so Rule 29.6 doesn’t apply | Rule 29.6 does not apply because the referenced pending appeal is from a final judgment, not an interlocutory order |
| Whether § 51.014(a) or (d) authorizes this interlocutory appeal | Adams: (implicit) statutory exceptions allow interlocutory appeals | Harris County: §51.014(a) does not list motions to dismiss interpleader; §51.014(d) requires a written trial-court order permitting appeal and none exists | No statutory basis found under §51.014(a) or (d); appeal not authorized |
| Whether any other law authorizes appeal of denial of motion to dismiss interpleader | Adams: pointed to no additional authority beyond Rule 29.6 | Harris County: No other statute or rule authorizes such interlocutory appeal; counsel found none | No other authority; appellate court lacks jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810 (Tex. 1993) (appellate court may dismiss for want of jurisdiction)
- De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. 2006) (interlocutory appeals are permitted only when authorized by law)
- Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582 (Tex. 2012) (finality rule and limits on interlocutory appeals)
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (definition of final judgment for appealability)