German Nieto and Joaquin Nieto, Appellants v. Jose Isaias Alvarado, Appellee

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.

German Nieto and Joaquin Nieto, Appellants v. Jose Isaias Alvarado, Appellee

NO. 03-17-00387-CV

Decided: March 23, 2018

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field

MEMORANDUM OPINION

German Nieto and Joaquin Nieto appeal from the trial court's order denying their motion for contempt filed against Jose Isaias Alvarado for allegedly violating a temporary injunction. The order states,

After considering Plaintiffs' motion for contempt, the response, the pleadings, and arguments of counsel, if any, the court:

Denies the motion.

The court finds that the temporary injunction issued on June 9, 2016 expired on August 8, 2016.

In their appellate brief, Appellants offer the following statement of jurisdiction: “This is an interlocutory appeal of an order dissolving a temporary injunction. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4).” The indicated statute provides, “A person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, statutory probate court, or county court that ․ grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4).

Appellants, however, are not appealing an order ruling on a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. Instead, they are appealing an order denying a motion for contempt. Even if we were to conclude that the order's statement that “[t]he court finds that the temporary injunction issued on June 9, 2016 expired on August 8, 2016” had some legal effect, the order does not dissolve a temporary injunction but rather concludes that the injunction expired on a particular date in the past.

An order denying a motion for contempt is not subject to appeal. See Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655, 655 (Tex. 1985) (per curiam) (“The court of appeals has erred in assuming jurisdiction over the present matter because an order finding a party not in contempt is not a final, appealable judgment.”); Hopkins v. Ott, No. 03-15-00606-CV, 2016 WL 1756650, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 29, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) “[H]opkins challenges a contempt order by interlocutory appeal, but relief from a contempt order is not available through appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss that appeal.”) (citations omitted); Hooper v. Hooper, No. 14-09-01024-CV, 2011 WL 334198, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 3, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Contempt proceedings, whether the court grants or denies the motion for contempt, are not appealable because they are not concerned with disposing of all claims and parties before the court, as are judgments; instead, contempt proceedings involve a court's enforcement of its own orders, regardless of the status of the claims between the parties before it.”) (cleaned up); see also In re B.A.C., 144 S.W.3d 8, 11 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, no pet.) (“The law that a denial of a motion for contempt is not an appealable order is at least as strong as the law that the imposition of a contempt order is not appealable.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Scott K. Field, Justice

Copied to clipboard