Liborio Solis v. Maria Solis Appeal from 288th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00544-CV Liborio SOLIS, Appellant v. Maria SOLIS, Appellee From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014-CI-06368 Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 19, 2014 DISMISSED AS MOOT Appellant filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal a “Default Order Granting Motion to Rule for Costs” signed on July 14, 2014. Because it appeared that the order was a non-appealable interlocutory order, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Minnfee v. Lexington, No. 04-09-00770-CV, 2010 WL 381367, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 3, 2010, pet. dism’d) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order on motion to rule for costs). 04-14-00544-CV Appellant filed a response in which he requested that we abate the appeal pending the trial court’s compliance with Rule 143 and the issuance of a delinquent dismissal order and that we allow his notice of appeal to become effective on the date of the dismissal order. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 143. Thereafter, we received from the trial court clerk a copy of the trial court’s “Order Setting Aside Default Order Granting Motion to Rule for Costs” signed on August 12, 2014. The order sets aside the July 14, 2014 order granting motion to rule for costs and denies the motion to rule for costs. In light of this order, we again ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. See Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2000) (justiciable controversy between the parties must exist at every stage of the legal proceedings, including the appeal, or the case is moot); Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999) (appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies). Appellant filed a response in which he concedes that, in light of the trial court’s August 12, 2014 order, the appeal is moot. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as moot. We order the trial court clerk to send a copy of its August 12, 2014 order to appellant. PER CURIAM -2-
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.
