Summary
holding that an order granting an interpleader is not an interlocutory order made appealable by statute
Summary of this case from Lakota v. Pathex Petro.Opinion
No. 14-07-00667-CV
Memorandum Opinion filed May 8, 2008.
On Appeal from the 334th District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2003-54820.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices FOWLER and BOYCE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant filed a notice of appeal from an order signed July 20, 2007, which sustained the interpleader filed by appellee and dismissed the law firm from the underlying suit. Because it appeared to this court from the record that the order is interlocutory and no final judgment has been signed, the court notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal unless appellant filed a response demonstrating that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. See Matthews v. Cohen, 807 S.W.2d 605, 606 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no writ) (recognizing that court must consider, even sua sponte, the matter of its own jurisdiction).
Appellant, who is pro se, requested and was granted an extension of time to file his response. On March 25, 2008, appellant filed a response asserting that this court has jurisdiction because the order is final between appellant and appellees. The court requested a response from appellee, which has now been filed, together with a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
According to appellee's response, the trial court properly determined that it has served all claimants with its petition in interpleader and deposited $20,000 into the registry of the court, which represented the balance of the settlement proceeds from a suit in federal court. Appellee asserted that while the trial court dismissed appellee from the suit, the order did not dismiss the cause of action and is therefore not a final order. The order did not dispose of every pending claim and party. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001).
The record indicates the case is set for trial in July, 2008.
We agree that the order appellant is attempting to appeal is not a final order. Id.; see also K S Interests, Inc. v. Texas Am. Bank/Dallas, 749 S.W.2d 887, 889-91 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988, writ denied) (holding order granting interpleader is interlocutory and not final). An order granting an interpleader is not an interlocutory order made appealable by statute. See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon Supp. 2007). Therefore, we must conclude that this court lack's jurisdiction over the appeal. Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.