Julia Ann Poff v. William Poff and Gina Smith Appeal from 253rd District Court of Liberty County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-23-00401-CV __________________ JULIA ANN POFF, Appellant V. WILLIAM POFF AND GINA SMITH, Appellees __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23DC-CV-00947 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Relying on Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court dismissed claims for “alienation of affection, criminal conversation and enticement of spouse[]” brought by Appellant, Julia Ann Poff, against Appellees, William Poff and Gina Smith. Appellant sought to appeal four orders: (1) an order denying a motion to quash a hearing and temporarily stay proceedings; (2) an order granting special exceptions; (3) an order granting a protective order from discovery; and (4) the order dismissing in part the lawsuit filed by Appellant. The Clerk of the Court 1 notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless the Court received a written reply identifying the particular statute or rule authorizing an appeal at this time. Appellant responded to the Clerk’s notice, arguing that a dismissal is an appealable order and that her main claim against Appellees is intentional infliction of emotional distress. This Court generally has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and interlocutory orders specifically made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. HarCon Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). As Appellant concedes, her live pleading includes claims against both Appellees for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court’s Rule 91a order does not dispose of all her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. None of the orders in the clerk’s record state that the orders are final and appealable, nor do the orders contain language that disposes of all claims and parties. See id. at 205. We conclude we lack jurisdiction over the attempted appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). APPEAL DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Submitted on April 3, 2024 Opinion Delivered April 4, 2024 Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, 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.
