KEITH JOHNSON v. MANAGED MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND LP (2010)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Morris

This is an appeal from a forcible detainer action awarding possession of certain real property to Managed Mortgage Investment Fund, LP. Keith R. Johnson, representing himself without an attorney, presents two issues.   Johnson contends the judgment of possession should be vacated because the trial judge did not address the merits of his wrongful foreclosure lawsuit currently pending against appellee in the 298 th Judicial District Court.   Johnson also argues that appellee should be held in contempt and sanctioned for violating an order of mediation in the district court lawsuit.   Because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion in accordance with Tex.R.App. P. 47.4. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and such interlocutory orders as the legislature deems appealable.   See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 n.12 (Tex.2001).   Appellate jurisdiction is never presumed.  Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d 542, 546 (Tex. App-Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh'g).   Unless the record affirmatively demonstrates our jurisdiction, we must dismiss.  Id.

Section 24.007 of the Texas Property Code states:  “A final judgment of a county court in an eviction suit may not be appealed on the issue of possession unless the premises in question are being used for residential purposes only.”   Appellee asserts that Johnson did not use the property in question for residential purposes.   We have reviewed the record before us.   There is no factual basis from which we can conclude Johnson is using the premises for residential purposes only.  Section 24.007 therefore precludes our review of Johnson's challenge to the trial court's judgment of possession.   Accordingly, we will dismiss Johnson's appeal with respect to his issue challenging the trial court's judgment of possession.

In his remaining issue, Johnson contends that appellee should be held in contempt or sanctioned for violating a mediation order in the wrongful foreclosure lawsuit that is currently pending before the district court.   We first note that appellant has presented no appealable order from the district court proceeding.   See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195 n.12. Moreover, it has long been held that one court may not punish a party for contempt in violating the order of another court.   See Ex parte Gonzalez, 238 S.W. 635 (Tex.1922).   Similarly, we have no authority to impose sanctions on a party for the violation of another court's order.   See Johnson v. Smith, 857 S.W.2d 612, 617-18 (Tex.App.-Hous. [1 st Dist.] 1993, no writ) (orig.proceeding).  We therefore will dismiss Johnson's appeal with respect to this issue.

Having determined that we do not have jurisdiction over Johnson's two appellate issues, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

091080F.P05

JOSEPH B. MORRIS JUSTICE