Richard Lares v. Martha C. Muniz Appeal from 45th 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. 04-20-00475-CV Richard LARES, Appellant v. Martha C. MUNIZ, Appellee From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006-CI-15663 Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 30, 2021 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Appellant Richard Lares, proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the trial court’s “Order on Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Compel the Respondent to Produce Documents, Petitioner’s Motion for Contempt of Court and to Modify The Rule 11 Court Order, and Petitioner’s Motion to Correct Judgment, and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and Respondent’s Motion to Enjoin” signed on July 17, 2020. The trial court’s order granted Lares credit toward his child support obligation for Social Security benefits received by the children, and denied all other relief requested in the case. The trial court’s order is interlocutory because it does not dispose of all 04-20-00475-CV parties and claims before the court. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if a specific statute authorizes such an interlocutory appeal. Id.; see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014. Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment in writing, this court has no jurisdiction over this appeal. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex. 2007); Ne. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). We therefore issued an order instructing appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant responded by attaching a copy of the order but did not establish that this court has jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. 42.3(a). 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.
