Narrative Opinion Summary
Tzu-Chen Lin appealed the trial court's denial of her plea to the jurisdiction in response to Chuan-Ben Fu's divorce suit. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, noted that its jurisdiction is restricted to final judgments and specific interlocutory orders authorized by statute. There is no provision for appealing a trial court's denial of a plea to the jurisdiction unless it pertains to a governmental unit, which appellant Tzu-Chen Lin is not. On September 27, 2022, the court's clerk informed Lin of a potential lack of appellate jurisdiction due to the absence of a final judgment or an appealable order and requested a response by October 21, 2022. Lin did not respond. Consequently, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. The dismissal was filed on November 18, 2022.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appealability of Denial of Plea to the Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that there is no statutory provision allowing appeal of a trial court's denial of a plea to the jurisdiction unless it involves a governmental unit.
Reasoning: There is no provision for appealing a trial court's denial of a plea to the jurisdiction unless it pertains to a governmental unit, which appellant Tzu-Chen Lin is not.
Appellate Jurisdiction Over Interlocutory Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Texas Court of Appeals highlighted that it only has jurisdiction over final judgments and specific interlocutory orders that are authorized by statute.
Reasoning: The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, noted that its jurisdiction is restricted to final judgments and specific interlocutory orders authorized by statute.
Consequence of Failure to Respond to Jurisdictional Noticesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant did not respond to the court's notice regarding the lack of appellate jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Reasoning: Lin did not respond. Consequently, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.