NUMBER 13-16-00148-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
THELMA DORIS FERRY, Appellant,
v.
DALE JAMES FERRY , Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 319th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Thelma Doris Ferry, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order
denying a motion to disqualify the trial judge in cause no. 2013-FAM-4013-G pending in
the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. Upon review of the documents before
the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a final
appealable order. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps
could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3.
Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date
of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant
filed a response generally asserting that the order at issue is final and appealable.
Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final orders or judgments unless
a statute permits an interlocutory appeal. Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319
n.1 (Tex. 2007). An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse
of discretion on appeal from a final judgment. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A). An order
denying a motion to disqualify is interlocutory. Dickson v. Dickson, 516 S.W.2d 28, 31
(Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1974, no writ). Such an order “may be reviewed by mandamus
and may be appealed in accordance with other law.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 18A(J)(2).
Because there is no “other law” permitting the interlocutory appeal of an order denying a
motion to disqualify in a case such as this, the denial of the motion to disqualify may also
be reviewed only upon appeal from final judgment. Here, the Court finds no basis for
interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over this appeal.
The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to
correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for
want of jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION. See id. 42.3(a),(c). All pending motions are likewise DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
9th day of June 2016.
2