HECTOR BUENTELLO AND CATARINA BUENTELLO v. MAYRA MALU CISNEROS--Appeal from 103rd District Court of Cameron County

NUMBER 13-06-152-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

HECTOR BUENTELLO AND

CATARINA BUENTELLO, Appellants,

v.

 MAYRA MALU CISNEROS, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 103rd District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

___________________________________________________ _______________

  MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Castillo

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This is an appeal from a bill of review proceeding. The trial court granted a bill of review in favor of appellee, Mayra Malu Cisneros, and vacated a previous order in another cause which entered a default judgment on liability and damages against appellee. Appellants, Hector Buentello and Catarina Buentello, filed a notice of appeal seeking to overturn the granting of the bill of review. On April 21, 2006, appellee filed a motion to dismiss appellants' appeal for want of jurisdiction. It has been more than ten days, and appellants have filed no response. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(b) & 10.3.

A bill of review that sets aside a prior judgment, but does not dispose of all the issues of the case on the merits, is interlocutory in nature and not a final, appealable order. See Shahbaz v. Feizy Import & Export Co., 827 S.W.2d 63, 64 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (citing Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705, 705 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam)). Here, the trial court vacated the prior judgment and reopened the case, but did not address the merits of appellants' claims. Instead, the trial court granted a new trial and ordered that a docket control conference be scheduled to obtain a new trial date and new deadlines. Because the judgment granting the bill of review does not dispose of all issues, it is merely interlocutory and not appealable. See id.

Accordingly, the Court, having examined and fully considered appellee's motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that the appeal of the trial court's granting of appellee's petition for bill of review should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction is granted, and the appeal is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

Furthermore, appellee's motion to abate the briefing schedule, also filed on April 21, 2006, is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 11th day of May, 2006.

[1]As this is a memorandum opinion and because all issues of law presented by this case are well settled and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite the law and the facts in this opinion except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court=s decision and the basic reasons for it. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.