In the Interest of G.A.M. Jr. and E.F.M. Appeal from 418th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-19-00162-CV __________________ IN THE INTEREST OF G.A.M. JR. AND E.F.M. __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 418th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 10-06-06026-CV __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant M.L.M., the mother of the minor children G.A.M. Jr. and E.F.M., filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying her motion to recuse. On May 31, 2019, we questioned our jurisdiction and requested that the parties file a written reply by Monday, June 17, 2019. We received no response. Courts of Appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless they have jurisdiction based on a statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 1 51.014 (West Supp. 2018). “No statute permits an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a motion to recuse.” Zachaire v. Petefield, No. 14-11-00254-CV, 2011 WL 2150645, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 2, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.). Orders denying recusals are appealable only after the trial court has issued a final judgment. In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428 (Tex. 1998); In re Norman, 191 S.W.3d 858, 860 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A); Tex. R. App. P. 16.3(c). Because a final judgment has not been entered, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Zachaire, 2011 WL 2150645, at *1; In re Norman, 191 S.W.3d at 860. APPEAL DISMISSED. _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on July 10, 2019 Opinion Delivered July 11, 2019 Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 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.