Phillip Ringley, Jr., Individually and as Co-Trustee of the Monarche Living Trust and Keelye Ringley, Individually and as Co-Trustee of the Monarche Living Trust v. the Highlands at Trophy Club Homeowners' Association, Inc.

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-25-00491-CV
___________________________

PHILLIP RINGLEY JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE
MONARCHE LIVING TRUST, AND KEELYE RINGLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE MONARCHE LIVING TRUST, Appellants

V.

THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Appellee

On Appeal from the 367th District Court
Denton County, Texas
Trial Court No. 21-8474-393

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants Phillip Ringley Jr. and Keelye Ringley (individually and as co-

trustees of the Monarche Living Trust) attempt to appeal from a trial court order that

granted leave for Appellee The Highlands at Trophy Club Homeowners’ Association,

Inc. to file an amended answer. But our appellate jurisdiction is limited to the review

of final judgments and appealable interlocutory orders, In re Guardianship of Jones, 629

S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. 2021); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.

2001), and the trial court’s order granting leave is neither. See AKMK Props., LLC v.

Tarrant Appraisal Dist., No. 02-20-00329-CV, 2020 WL 7393733, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth Dec. 17, 2020, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (holding appellate court

lacked jurisdiction over attempted interlocutory appeal from trial court’s order on

motion for leave to file amended pleadings); Cooper v. Circle Ten Council Boy Scouts of

Am., No. 05-05-01074-CV, 2005 WL 2764254, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 26,

2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (similar); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

§ 51.014(a) (listing immediately appealable interlocutory orders).

We notified the Ringleys of this jurisdictional flaw and warned that we could

dismiss their appeal unless they showed grounds for continuing it. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.3(a). The Ringleys responded by asserting that the trial court’s order granting leave

is “[v]oid,” that it is “distinct from the merits of the underlying causes of action,” and

that the trial court committed numerous constitutional and procedural errors in its

handling of the matter. But none of these allegations confer jurisdiction on this court

2
or change the fact that the challenged order is not subject to immediate interlocutory

appeal. Cf. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a).

Accordingly, we dismiss the Ringleys’ attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); see AKMK Props., 2020 WL 7393733, at *1 (dismissing

attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction when appellant challenged interlocutory

order on motion for leave to file amended pleadings).

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth
Chief Justice

Delivered: October 23, 2025

3