In the Estate of Janet R. Davis, Deceased--Appeal from Probate Court No 2 of Harris County

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-02-00116-CV
______________________________
IN THE ESTATE OF JANET R. DAVIS, DECEASED
On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court No. 305,116-401
Before Morriss, C.J., Grant and Ross, JJ.
Opinion by Justice Grant
O P I N I O N

Don and Linda Davis, acting pro se, have filed an appeal from an order denying their motion to recuse the Honorable Mike Wood, Judge for the Probate Court Number 2 of Harris County, in connection with the probate of the estate of Janet Davis. The attempted removal of the judge was based both on recusal and disqualification grounds. This appeal was transferred to this court through a docket equalization order of the Texas Supreme Court.

The initial question is whether the order is appealable. Generally, only final decisions of trial courts are appealable. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 51.012 (Vernon 1997); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The Legislature has also authorized the appeal of a number of interlocutory orders. See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2002).

The Legislature has not provided that an order rendered on a motion to remove a judge either by recusal or disqualification is appealable. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure expressly provide for appellate review only from a final judgment after denial of a recusal motion. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(f); In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428-29 (Tex. 1998); Thomas v. Walker, 860 S.W.2d 579, 581 (Tex. App.-Waco 1993, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to consider an appeal on this basis.

Further, the Texas Supreme Court held in In re Union Pacific Resources Co. that although the question of the constitutional disqualification of a judge may be addressed without the necessity of awaiting a final judgment, mandamus is the proper venue for an attempt to obtain an interlocutory ruling.

We conclude we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

 

Ben Z. Grant

Justice

 

Date Submitted: October 16, 2002

Date Decided: October 17, 2002

 

Do Not Publish