In the Interest of K.R.C., a Child Appeal from 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-17-00617-CV IN THE INTEREST OF K.R.C., a Child From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 16-1487-CV Honorable James Rausch, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 20, 2017 DISMISSED Appellant, who is pro se, filed what he designated as a notice of restricted appeal in the trial court on September 21, 2017. The document was filed in this court on September 25, 2017. Appellant purported to appeal a final judgment granting a default judgment entered by the trial court on April 11, 2017. However, the trial court clerk’s record, which was filed on November 14, 2017, did not indicate a default judgment was taken against appellant. Rather, the trial court clerk’s record reflected a hearing was set for December 19, 2017. Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for appellate purposes if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record. Id. Therefore, as it appeared that we did not have jurisdiction over this appeal, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should 04-17-00617-CV not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant’s response contained only a reset order. Appellant’s response does not include any indication default judgment was taken against him. Further, the trial court clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing an order reflecting the December 19, 2017 hearing was reset for January 23, 2018. The supplemental record also did not include any indication default judgment was taken against appellant. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.