Opinion
02-22-00439-CV
12-22-2022
Kimberly Johnson, Appellant v. ONM Living LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. CV-2022-03570-JP
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Per Curiam
Appellant Kimberly Johnson attempts to appeal the trial court's order declaring that she was able to pay court costs and an appeal bond in her eviction case. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 510.9.
"As a general rule, appeals may be taken only from final judgments." Sabre Travel Int'l, Ltd. v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, 567 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. 2019). "Unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally only have jurisdiction over final judgments." CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011).
We notified Johnson that we were concerned that we might not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the order being appealed was not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order and because the rules applicable to eviction suits do not otherwise provide a mechanism for appeal of such an order to this court. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 500.3(e), 510.9(c)(3); Ferguson v. Self, No. 02-21-00279-CV, 2021 WL 4783163, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Oct. 14, 2021, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). We stated that unless Johnson filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, this appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(a), 44.3. We have received no response from Johnson.
On November 21, 2022, while this appeal was pending, we received another notice of appeal and a copy of a final judgment signed by the trial court in the underlying eviction suit. The appeal from that final judgment is a separate appeal from the appeal of this order. Because Johnson paid the bond and the county court accepted the appeal of the eviction judgment, this bond appeal is also moot. See Meeker v. Tarrant Cnty. Coll. Dist., 317 S.W.3d 754, 759 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2010, pet. denied) ("An issue may become moot when a party seeks a ruling on some matter that, when rendered, would not have any practical legal effect on a then-existing controversy.").
We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).