553 S.W.3d 643
Tex. App.2018Background
- Trial court signed an interlocutory order on Jan. 23, 2018 declaring John Margetis a vexatious litigant, requiring a $10,000 security to benefit Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, and requiring prior permission from the local administrative judge before filing further pro se suits.
- The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on Feb. 26, 2018.
- Margetis filed a pro se notice of appeal on Apr. 4, 2018, stating he wished to appeal a “motion to dismiss.”
- Texas appellate rules treat interlocutory vexatious‑litigant/pre‑filing orders as accelerated appeals that must be perfected within 20 days of the order being signed.
- Because Margetis’s notice of appeal was filed well after the 20‑day deadline, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the vexatious‑litigant order.
- The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order expunging lis pendens because no statute authorizes an appeal from such an interlocutory order; the appeal was dismissed and all pending motions were denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over appeal of the vexatious‑litigant/pre‑filing order | Margetis sought to appeal the order (filed Apr. 4) | Bayview argued the appeal was untimely under accelerated‑appeal rules | Appeal untimely; court lacks jurisdiction because notice was filed more than 20 days after Jan. 23 order |
| Whether an interlocutory order expunging lis pendens is appealable | Margetis challenged expungement | Bayview argued no statutory authority permits interlocutory appeal of lis pendens expungement | No jurisdiction; interlocutory expungement of lis pendens is not made appealable by statute |
| Proper construction of Margetis’s pro se notice of appeal | Margetis asked to appeal a “motion to dismiss”; he intended to appeal the Jan. 23 order | Bayview noted no motion to dismiss in record and timeliness problem remains | Court construes notice as attempting to appeal Jan. 23 order but still dismisses for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (explaining appellate jurisdiction is limited to final judgments and interlocutory orders made appealable by statute)