in the Matter of the Marriage of Lashon M. Henry and Jonathan N. Henry

Motion Disposed, Appeal Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed March 30, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00080-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF LASHON M. HENRY AND JONATHAN N. HENRY

On Appeal from the 245th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020-28372

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Jonathan N. Henry, filed a document entitled “Notice of Interlocutory Appeal of Temporary Orders by Writ of Mandamus.” The order at issue is a temporary order under the Family Code signed on December 16, 2020 in a divorce proceeding involving children.

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness

Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The Family Code specifically precludes the interlocutory appeal of temporary orders, except those appointing a receiver. Tex. Fam. Code §§ 6.507 (temporary order in suit for dissolution of marriage is not subject to interlocutory appeal); 105.001(e) (temporary order in suit affecting parent-child relationship is not subject to interlocutory appeal); Mason v. Mason, 256 S.W.3d 716, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (per curiam). Nor does the “Notice of Interlocutory Appeal of Temporary Orders by Writ of Mandamus” satisfy the requirements for a petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.

On February 26, 2021, we notified the parties that we would dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless any party filed a response on or before March 8, 2021, showing meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal. On March 3, 2021, appellant filed a document entitled, “Petitioner’s Motion for Stay of All Further Proceedings on the Interlocutory Motion for Writ of Mandamus.” The motion states in relevant part:

Jonathan N. Henry, Petitioner, files this Motion to Stay All Further Proceedings in this case until the final judgment has been entered.

Petitioner requests the Honorable Justice of this Court to dismiss the Motion without prejudice.

The motion does not demonstrate that we have jurisdiction. Appellant has not filed any other response to our dismissal notice.

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant’s motion to stay is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan.