In the Interest of G.L.A, Jr., E.L.A. and R.R.A.--Appeal from 258th District Court of San Jacinto County

Annotate this Case
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-04-055 CV
____________________
IN THE INTEREST OF G.L.A., JR., E.L.A. AND R.R.A.
On Appeal from the 258th District Court
San Jacinto County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10,364
MEMORANDUM OPINION (1)

This is an appeal in a case filed under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ("UIFSA"). See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 159.001-.901 (Vernon 2002 & Supp. 2004). The appellant, Karen Ellen Alexander, filed a motion for enforcement of a registered Maryland divorce decree. On November 5, 2003, the trial court entered the following order:

On August 27, 2003, the Court heard this case. After hearing evidence and arguments of counsel, the Court finds that Maryland is the more appropriate forum for this case to be heard. Therefore the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this cause.

 

IT IS ORDERED that the current employer's withholding order and child support lien remain in force until further court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

On Jule 2, 2004, the appellee, Gregory Lee Alexander, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, in which the appellee argues that the trial court's order is interlocutory and not appealable. We agree. We have jurisdiction to entertain appeals from final orders and from certain interlocutory orders, none of which apply here. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2004). Although it declined to exercise its jurisdiction over the case, the trial court did not dismiss it. The order is not a final judgment because it neither dismisses the case nor disposes of the appellant's motion for enforcement on its merits, either expressly or through language of finality.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered July 1, 2004

Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.

1. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

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.