Sarah Robertson Smith v. Travis Robertson Appeal from 300th District Court of Brazoria County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued December 22, 2015 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-15-00538-CV ——————————— SARAH ROBERTSON SMITH, Appellant V. TRAVIS ROBERTSON, Appellee On Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 67362 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Sarah Robertson Smith filed her notice of appeal challenging the Honorable K. Randall Hufstetler’s refusal to sign an “Order in Suit to Modify Parent Child Relationship.” This Court generally has jurisdiction only over appeals from final orders or judgments unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(b) (West 2014) (“An appeal may be taken by any party to a suit from a final order rendered under this title.”); see also CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) (“Unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally only have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments.”). On September 29, 2015, we notified appellant that we may not have jurisdiction over her direct appeal because the appellate record does not include a final order or judgment or otherwise reflect that a judgment has been rendered in this case. We informed appellant that her direct appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless she filed a response demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal or a supplemental clerk’s record containing documents showing a final judgment or otherwise appealable order. No supplemental clerk’s record has been filed and appellant’s response does not demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction over her direct appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Accordingly, we dismiss this direct appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). But cf. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (granting appellate courts jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus against district court judges); In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445, 450 n.7 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding) (recognizing that mandamus relief is available to remedy trial court’s erroneous 2 refusal to enter judgment on mediated settlement agreement). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Huddle, and Lloyd. 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.
