Julia Ann Poff v. William Poff and Gina Smith

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00401-CV
__________________

JULIA ANN POFF, Appellant

V.

WILLIAM POFF AND GINA SMITH, Appellees

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 23DC-CV-00947
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relying on Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court

dismissed claims for “alienation of affection, criminal conversation and enticement

of spouse[]” brought by Appellant, Julia Ann Poff, against Appellees, William Poff

and Gina Smith. Appellant sought to appeal four orders: (1) an order denying a

motion to quash a hearing and temporarily stay proceedings; (2) an order granting

special exceptions; (3) an order granting a protective order from discovery; and (4)

the order dismissing in part the lawsuit filed by Appellant. The Clerk of the Court

1
notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless

the Court received a written reply identifying the particular statute or rule

authorizing an appeal at this time. Appellant responded to the Clerk’s notice, arguing

that a dismissal is an appealable order and that her main claim against Appellees is

intentional infliction of emotional distress.

This Court generally has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments

and interlocutory orders specifically made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har-

Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). As Appellant concedes, her live

pleading includes claims against both Appellees for intentional infliction of

emotional distress. The trial court’s Rule 91a order does not dispose of all her claims

for intentional infliction of emotional distress. None of the orders in the clerk’s

record state that the orders are final and appealable, nor do the orders contain

language that disposes of all claims and parties. See id. at 205.

We conclude we lack jurisdiction over the attempted appeal. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 3, 2024
Opinion Delivered April 4, 2024

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

2