H.K. Barrett and Alice Barrett v. Constance Wasson Barrett and Stephen K. Barrett--Appeal from 387th District Court of Fort Bend County

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 31, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00373-CV

____________

H. K. BARRETT and ALICE BARRETT, Appellants

V.

CONSTANCE WASSON BARRETT and STEPHEN K. BARRETT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 387th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 01-CV-122041

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants, H. K. Barrett and Alice Barrett, appeal from an order striking their petition in intervention seeking access to their grandchild. Appellants challenge the trial court=s order in two issues on appeal. Because the record before this court fails to establish we have jurisdiction over the appeal, we must dismiss.

Factual and Procedural Background

Constance Wasson Barrett filed a petition for divorce from her husband, Stephen K. Barrett, in 2001. The parties have one child of the marriage, B.A.B. Appellants, the child=s paternal grandparents, filed a petition in intervention seeking access to the child on September 12, 2002. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 153.433 (Vernon 2002) (AThe Grandparent Access Statute@). On December 13, 2002, Constance Barrett filed a motion to strike the intervenors= pleadings. On February 13, 2003, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the merits of appellants= petition in intervention. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied appellants access to their grandchild and ordered their petition in intervention stricken. The trial court signed its order granting the motion to strike the petition in intervention, effectively dismissing appellants= cause of action, on February 27, 2003. Appellants filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the trial court signed its findings and conclusions on March 7, 2003. This appeal followed.

Jurisdiction

Although not raised by the parties, we are obligated to determine sua sponte our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See Tex. Ass=n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1993): New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 678 (Tex. 1990). With few exceptions, appeals are allowed only from final judgments. Mafrige v. Ross, 866 S.W.2d 590, 591 92 (Tex. 1993); North E. I. S. D. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352 53 (Tex. 1998). The legislature has specifically authorized the appeal of some interlocutory orders. See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2004) (authorizing interlocutory appeals of orders such as those appointing receivers or trustees, certifying or refusing to certify a class, granting or refusing temporary injunctions, and denying motions for summary judgment based upon claims of immunity or free speech grounds).

In this case, there is no final decree of divorce in our record. Nor is there an order severing appellants= claims from the divorce.[1] Therefore, the order striking appellants= intervention is interlocutory. No statute provides for interlocutory appeal of an order dismissing or striking a petition in intervention, or denying permission to intervene. Such an order may not be appealed by the intervenor before the rendition of final judgment between the original parties. See Mueller v. Banks, 302 S.W.2d 447, 448 (Tex. Civ. App.CEastland 1957, writ ref=d); Metromedia Long Distance, Inc. v. Hughes, 810 S.W.2d 494, 499 (Tex. App.CSan Antonio 1991, writ denied); League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Lo Vaca Gathering Co., 527 S.W.2d 507, 508 (Tex. Civ. App.CSan Antonio 1975, writ ref=d n.r.e.). Because the order striking appellants= petition in intervention is not an appealable interlocutory order, it is not within our power to review for error.

On August 13, 2004, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court=s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellants filed no response.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed August 31, 2004.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Guzman.

[1] We note that at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing in this matter, appellants= counsel stated he would present a motion to sever the intervention. No motion or severance order has been included in our record, however.