Appeal from the 189th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2016-58409.
consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and
Steven Moody, attempts to appeal from the trial court's
October 21, 2016 "Order Voiding Default Judgment."
Appellee, Deborah Guillory, has filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal, contending that Moody seeks to appeal an
interlocutory order and the Court does not have jurisdiction
over the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
trial court cause number 2014-45430, Moody sued Guillory,
Success Auto Sale Co., Thomas Benson, and "John Doe, et
al." asserting claims for breach of contract, and
violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer
Protection Act and Federal Odometer Act. On October 25, 2015,
the trial court signed an order, indicating that the
defendants had been served with citation and failed to
appear, and stating that Moody was awarded "from each
Defendant $80, 000.00 with interest."
motion to dismiss reflects that, in trial court cause no.
2016-58409, she filed a petition for bill of review "to
determine the validity of the Default Judgment Steven Moody
obtained in Cause No[.] 2014-45430." On October 21,
2016, the trial court signed an order finding that the
"Default Judgment [was] void for due process
violation" and ordering:
1. The Default Judgment entered in Cause No. 2014-45430 is
void as Deborah Guillory was not served with process, Thomas
Benson was not served with process, and Success Holdings,
LLC, d/b/a Success Auto was not served with process.
2. This case will revert back to its original status in Cause
No. 2014- 45430 with Steven Moody as the Plaintiff and
Success Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Success Auto, Deborah Guillory,
& Thomas Benson as the Defendants. . . .
4. Plaintiff Steven Moody will have the burden of proving the
underlying causes of action he raised in No. 2014-45430.
by counsel, Moody filed a notice of appeal of the trial
court's October 21, 2016 order. In her motion to dismiss,
Guillory asserts that we lack jurisdiction over Moody's
appeal because the October 21, 2016 order does not dispose of
all the issues in the case on the merits. Moody has not
responded to Guillory's motion.
appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from
final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39
S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Ne. Indep. Sch.
Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966)
(citations omitted). To be final, a judgment must dispose of
all issues and parties in a case. Aldridge, 400
S.W.2d at 895 (citations omitted). Here, the trial court
determined that the default judgment in cause no. 2014-45430
was void but did not resolve Moody's causes of action
against Guillory and the other defendants in that proceeding.
A judgment rendered in a bill of review proceeding that sets
aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of the case on
the merits is interlocutory and not a final judgment from
which an appeal will lie. See Kiefer v. Touris, 197
S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2006) (citing Tesoro Petroleum v.
Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705, 705 (Tex. 1990)); Jordan v.
Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995) (citing
Tesoro, 796 S.W.2d at 705; Warren v.
Walter, 414 S.W.2d 423, 423 (Tex. 1967)); see also
Xioadong Li v. DDX Group Inv., LLC, 404 S.W.3d 58, 62
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) ("'The
final judgment in a bill of review action should either deny
any relief to the petitioner or grant the bill of review and
set aside the former judgment, insofar as it is attacked, and
substitute a new judgment which properly adjudicates the
entire controversy.'") (quoting Shahbaz v. Feizy
Import & Export Co., 827 S.W.2d 63, 64 (Tex.
App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ))). Because it does
not purport to dispose of the claims between the parties, the
October 21, 2016 order is interlocutory and is not a final
and appealable judgment.
we conclude that the Court does not have jurisdiction over
Moody's attempted appeal. We grant Guillory's motion
and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See
Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any other
pending motions as moot.