Merie Yazbek AND Joseph Yammine, Cedar Paint & Body, Cedar Auto Sales, JW Construction, JW Construction Storage, and Diamond Hill Wrecker Service v. Fort Worth Transportation Authority Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-17-00242-CV MERIE YAZBEK AND JOSEPH YAMMINE, CEDAR PAINT & BODY, CEDAR AUTO SALES, JW CONSTRUCTION, JW CONSTRUCTION STORAGE, AND DIAMOND HILL WRECKER SERVICE APPELLANTS V. FORT WORTH TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY APPELLEE ---------FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 2016-006915-3 ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Merie Yazbek attempts to appeal from an “Award of Special Commissioners” signed on June 30, 2017. On July 27, 2017, we sent a letter to 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Yazbek expressing our concern that we may not have jurisdiction over her appeal because the award does not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that “the general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment”). We stated that unless Yazbek or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing this appeal by August 7, 2017, her appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Yazbek requested an extension of time to file a response, which we granted. We did not receive any response. Accordingly, we dismiss Yazbek’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Appellants Joseph Yammine, Cedar Paint & Body, Cedar Auto Sales, JW Construction, JW Construction Storage, and Diamond Hill Wrecker Service (Appellants) attempt to appeal from an “Order on Motion to Modify or Abate Writ of Possession” signed on August 24, 2017, and an “Order Denying Motion to Extend Time to Vacate or Abate Writ of Possession” signed on September 1, 2017. On September 29, 2017, we sent a letter to Appellants expressing our concern that we may not have jurisdiction over their appeal because the orders do not appear to be final judgments or appealable interlocutory orders. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. We stated that unless Appellants or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by October 9, 2017, their appeal could be dismissed for want of 2 jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. We did not receive any response. Accordingly, we dismiss Appellants’ appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). PER CURIAM PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. DELIVERED: November 9, 2017 3
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.
