In the Interest of E.G.D. and E.A.D., children Appeal from 254th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed and Opinion Filed June 17, 2016 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00431-CV IN THE INTEREST OF E.G.D. AND E.A.D., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-06657 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges, and Justice Lang Opinion by Justice Bridges The Court has before it Denise Shelly Doyle’s June 7, 2016 motion to dismiss appeal for want of jurisdiction. A review of the record shows Enoch Spurgeon Doyle filed his April 13, 2016 appeal of the trial court’s April 12, 2016 temporary orders. Appellate courts may review only final and appealable judgments or interlocutory orders specifically made appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Temporary orders involving child support and custody entered while a divorce proceeding is pending are interlocutory, and no statutory provision authorizes appeal of those orders. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 105.001(e) (West 2014); see also Dancy v. Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam) (op. on mot. reh’g) (holding mandamus is appropriate remedy to challenge temporary orders governing issues of conservatorship and child support because trial court’s issuance of temporary orders not subject to interlocutory appeal). Here, the orders Enoch seeks to appeal are temporary orders pending final decree of divorce. Therefore, the interlocutory appeal is precluded by family code section 105.001(e). See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 105.001(e) (West 2014). We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE 160431F.P05 –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF E.G.D. AND E.A.D., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-06657. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang participating. No. 05-16-00431-CV In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. We ORDER that Denise Shelly Doyle recover her costs, if any, of this appeal from Enoch Spurgeon Doyle. Judgment entered June 17, 2016. –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.
