Terry Trimble, Tom Phillips, Judy Rouse, Barry W. Frederickson, and Claudia Langguth v. John L. Robinson--Appeal from 331st District Court of Travis County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 3rd District Court of Appeals » 1996 » Terry Trimble, Tom Phillips, Judy Rouse, Barry W. Frederickson, and Claudia Langguth v. John L. Robinson--Appeal from 331st District Court of Travis County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 03-95-00707-CV

Case Date: 06/26/1996

Plaintiff: Thomas Allan Cook

Defendant: Annis Jo Cook--Appeal from 74th District Court of McLennan County

Preview:Thomas Allan Cook v. Annis Jo Cook--Appeal from
74th District Court of McLennan County
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-94-271-CV
THOMAS ALLAN COOK,
Appellant
v.
ANNIS JO COOK,
Appellee
From the 74th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court # 94-2806-3
O P I N I O N
Annis Jo Cook (Ann) filed suit for divorce against Thomas Cook in McLennan County on August 5, 1994. Thomas
filed a plea in abatement alleging that Ann had not been a resident of the county for ninety days preceding her filing.
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 3.21 (Vernon 1993). The court heard and denied the plea in abatement and granted
temporary orders under section 3.58 of the Family Code. See id. 3.58 (Vernon 1993). Thomas attempted to perfect an
interlocutory appeal from the orders, asserting that section 54.014 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows him
that right. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 54.014(4) (Vernon Supp. 1994). His primary complaint is that the
court abused its discretion in failing to grant his plea in abatement and thus had no authority to issue the temporary
orders. // Ann challenges our jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Absent an express grant, appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders. New York
Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex. 1990). Although the Civil Practice and Remedies Code
provides for an interlocutory appeal from an order that "grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/1454.html[8/20/2013 7:04:41 PM]

a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction as provided by Chapter 65," subsection (g) was added to section 3.58 of
the Family Code in 1985, providing:
(g) An order issued under this section, except an order appointing a receiver, is not subject to interlocutory appeal.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 51.014(4); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 3.58(g). At the same time, an almost identical
provision was added to section 11.11 of the Family Code, which provides for temporary orders in a suit affecting the
parent-child relationship. Id. 11.11(g) (Vernon 1986). That provision has been interpreted by our Supreme Court as
precluding an interlocutory appeal of temporary orders issued under section 11.11. Dancy v. Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548,
549 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding). We believe that section 3.58(g) should be construed likewise. See Tex. Fam. Code
Ann. 3.58(g); see also Post v. Garza, 867 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1993, orig. proceeding) ("Specifically,
since the trial court's issuance of temporary orders in a divorce action is not subject to interlocutory appeal, mandamus
is an appropriate remedy to challenge such orders.")
Being without jurisdiction to entertain Thomas's complaints about the temporary orders issued under section 3.58, we
dismiss his appeal. See id; Dancy, 815 S.W.2d at 549.
BILL VANCE
Justice
Before Chief Justice Thomas,
Justice Cummings, and
Justice Vance
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Opinion delivered and filed October 19, 1994
Publish
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/1454.html[8/20/2013 7:04:41 PM]

Download 1454.pdf