Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
In the Interest of A.R. and I.R., Children
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
The trial court signed a default order in suit affecting the parent-child relationship on May 11, 2012. Appellee J.D. filed a timely motion to set aside the default judgment, which the trial court granted on July 23, 2012, while it still had plenary jurisdiction over the case. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 329b(e). Appellant R.R. filed a notice of appeal from the July 23, 2012 order.
On August 10, 2012, we notified Appellant that it appeared the trial court's granting of a new trial rendered this appeal moot and that we would dismiss the appeal unless Appellant filed a response stating grounds for continuing the appeal. See, e.g., In re C.D.E., No. 02–12–00051–CV, 2012 WL 955381, at *1 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth Mar. 22, 2012, no pet.) (mem.op.) (dismissing appeal as moot after trial court granted motion for new trial). Appellant filed a response explaining that he sought to appeal the order granting a new trial because it “falls within the rules established by” In re Columbia Medical Center, 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex.2009). However, to the extent that Appellant seeks to challenge the specificity of the trial court's order granting a new trial, see id. at 205, a petition for writ of mandamus is the appropriate means by which to do so, not a direct appeal. See id. at 209–10 (explaining in original proceeding that relator did not have an adequate remedy by appeal to challenge the specificity of the new trial order because “only in two instances have new trial orders rendered during the time a trial court has plenary power been reviewable by an appellate court: when the trial court's order was void and when the trial court erroneously concluded that the jury's answers to special issues were irreconcilably in conflict”); see also In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., 289 S.W.3d 861, 861–62 (Tex.2009). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex.R.App. P. 43.2(f).
PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.
DELIVERED: September 13, 2012
FOOTNOTES
FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.. FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: NO. 02–12–00320–CV
Decided: September 13, 2012
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)