Diane Bozanich Ratley v. William David Ratley Appeal from 362nd District Court of Denton County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-21-00166-CV ___________________________ DIANE BOZANICH RATLEY, Appellant V. WILLIAM DAVID RATLEY, Appellee On Appeal from the 362nd District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 19-9876-362 Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr MEMORANDUM OPINION In this divorce case, Diane Bozanich Ratley attempts to appeal from the trial court’s “Order on Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc” correcting the trial court’s “Order for Appointment of Realtor,” which appointed a realtor to list and sell the Ratleys’ marital residence. Because neither order appeared to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, we notified appellant of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. We informed her that unless she or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response within ten days showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we would dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Ten days have passed, and we have received no response. We have jurisdiction to consider appeals only from final judgments and from certain interlocutory orders made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a). Unless a statutory exception applies, an order that does not dispose of all pending parties and claims remains interlocutory and unappealable until a final judgment is signed. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; In re Roxsane R., 249 S.W.3d 764, 774–75 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, orig. proceeding). Here, neither order is a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, and we thus dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). 2 /s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice Delivered: September 23, 2021 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
