Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-23-00832-CV
ENVIRONMENTAL INDUSTRIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. d/b/a EISG, Inc., Barry
Esene, and Ruthie Esene,
Appellants
v.
HOLT TEXAS LTD,
Appellee
From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2021-CI-13443
Honorable Christine Vasquez-Hortick, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 17, 2024
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
The underlying dispute in this appeal involves a bill of review that sought to set aside a
2020 money judgment against appellants. An appeal of the final judgment in the bill of review is
currently pending in this court in Cause Number 04-23-00067-CV. The notice of appeal in this
case, however, challenges a post-judgment order directing the Bexar County District Clerk to
release funds held in the trial court’s registry. The order at issue in this appeal required the funds
in question to be disbursed to a receiver appointed after the entry of the 2020 judgment challenged
in the bill of review.
04-23-00832-CV
Generally, a direct appeal may challenge only “a final judgment or certain interlocutory
orders expressly made appealable by statute.” Sunnyland Dev., Inc. v. Shawn Ibrahim, Inc., 597
S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, no pet.) (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
ANN. §§ 51.012, 51.014(a)); see also Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
“Orders made for the purpose of enforcing or carrying into effect an already-rendered judgment
generally are not final judgments or decrees, and therefore cannot be appealed.” Sintim v. Larson,
489 S.W.3d 551, 556 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.); In re Doe, 397 S.W.3d
847, 849 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, no pet.); Qualia v. Qualia, 37 S.W.3d 128, 129 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.). “An appeal from a post-judgment order that is not appealable
must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” Sunnyland, 597 S.W.3d at 3; see also Lovall v. Yen,
No. 14-07-00770-CV, 2008 WL 361373, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 12, 2008,
no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of post-judgment order that “was merely a ministerial act
incident to the final judgment, providing for disbursement of funds directed by the [final]
judgment, akin to a writ of execution”).
On November 28, 2023, we issued an order noting that the post-judgment order appellants
seek to challenge does not appear to be either a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order.
See, e.g., Qualia, 37 S.W.3d at 129; Lovall, 2008 WL 361373, at *1–2. We therefore ordered
appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In our
order, we cautioned appellants that if they did not file an adequate response, we would dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction.
On December 27 and 28, 2023, appellants filed two amended notices of appeal purporting
to change the style of this case to “Leesen, LLC and Diogu Law Firm PLLC v. Craig Noack and
-2-
04-23-00832-CV
Noack Law Firm, PLLC.” 1 On December 29, 2023, appellants filed a response to our show cause
order. In their response, appellants argued that the challenged post-judgment order is final and
appealable because it is void. As support for this proposition, appellants cited several opinions
holding that a judgment may be final for the purposes of appeal even if it is void. See State ex rel.
Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 485–86 (Tex. 1995); Newsom v. Ballinger Indep. Sch. Dist., 213
S.W.3d 375, 380 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.); In re Vlasak, 141 S.W.3d 233, 237–38 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); see also PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267,
272 (Tex. 2012) (defining void judgment). However, none of appellants’ cited authority holds that
a post-judgment order is final or otherwise appealable because it is purportedly void. See Sintim,
489 S.W.3d at 556 (“Even if a trial court signs an interlocutory order that is void for lack of
jurisdiction, this court still has no jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal from that order
absent statutory authority.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Fluid Power Equip.,
Inc., 612 S.W.3d 130, 134 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding) (noting that
post-judgment orders made for the purpose of enforcing or carrying out a prior judgment “are not
subject to appeal” but may be reviewable by mandamus).
Appellants’ response to our show cause order did not address the issue raised in that order:
that the challenged post-judgment order appears to be a non-appealable “[o]rder[] made for the
purpose of enforcing or carrying into effect an already-rendered judgment[.]” Sintim, 489 S.W.3d
at 556; Qualia, 37 S.W.3d at 129; Lovall, 2008 WL 361373, at *1–2. Because we conclude the
1
Diogu Law Firm PLLC represents appellants, while Leesen LLC appears to have paid the funds held in the trial
court’s registry. Craig Noack and Noack Law Firm, PLLC are the court-appointed receiver and his law firm. The
record before us does not indicate that Diogu Law Firm PLLC or Leesen LLC were parties to this lawsuit below or
that they intervened before the trial court rendered a final judgment. See State v. Naylor, 466 S.W.3d 783, 795 (Tex.
2015).
-3-
04-23-00832-CV
challenged post-judgment order is not an appealable order, we dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
-4-