Sheik Tehuti as for the Fahamme Nation of Nations v. the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association FKA the Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. as Successor to JP Morgan Chase Bank, as Trustee for Residential Asset Securities Corporation
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-16-00097-CV
SHEIK TEHUTI AS EXECUTOR APPELLANT
FOR THE FAHAMME NATION OF
NATIONS
V.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK APPELLEE
MELLON TRUST COMPANY,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FKA
THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST
COMPANY, N.A. AS SUCCESSOR
TO JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, AS
TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL
ASSET SECURITIES
CORPORATION
------------
FROM THE 67TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 67-282078-15
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Sheik Tehuti as executor for the Fahamme Nation of Nations
attempts to appeal from an order denying his motion for emergency hearing and
motion for bill of review following the issuance of a default order by the trial court
under rule of civil procedure 736. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.7(a). We dismiss the
appeal.
On December 22, 2015, the trial court signed a “Default Order” allowing
appellee (which we have identified in the style of the case above) to proceed with
foreclosure of real property in Forest Hill. The order cited rule of civil procedure
736 and stated, “This Order is not subject to a motion for rehearing, a new trial, a
bill of review, or an appeal. Any challenge to this order must be made in a
separate, original proceeding filed in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 736.11.”
Appellant filed a “Motion for Emergency Hearing Subject Matter
Jurisdiction” and a motion seeking a bill of review. On March 17, 2016, the trial
court signed an order denying these motions for want of jurisdiction. Appellant
brought this appeal from the March 17, 2016 order.
On March 24, 2016, we sent appellant a letter expressing our concern that
we lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial court’s March 17 order was
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
not appealable. We informed appellant that we could dismiss the appeal unless
he filed a response showing grounds for continuing it. Appellant responded, but
his response does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.
An order issued under rule of civil procedure 736 that grants an application
for an expedited order allowing the foreclosure of a lien is not appealable. See
Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.1(a), 736.7(b), 736.8(c). Rather, by rule, any “challenge to a
[r]ule 736 order must be made in a suit filed in a separate, independent, original
proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.8(c); see
Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.11(a). Because appellant attempts to appeal from an
unappealable order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R.
Civ. P. 736.8(c); see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Layegh v. Stonebridge
Ranch Cmty. Ass’n, Inc., No. 05-15-00494-CV, 2015 WL 4722428, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Aug. 10, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.); Jennings v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., No. 03-15-00336-CV, 2015 WL 4604113, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin July 28,
2015, no pet.) (mem. op.).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.
DELIVERED: May 19, 2016
3