Tilotta v. Smith-Tilotta (pdf) (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] March 4, 2010)(per curiam)
no final order to appeal from, interlocutory appeal not authorized)
DISMISS APPEAL: Per Curiam    
Before Justices Jennings, Hanks and Bland    
01-09-00817-CV  Michael Tilotta v. Dewana Smith-Tilotta    
Appeal from 257th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: The
Honorable Judy L. Warne


We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

On August 25, 2009, in an interlocutory order, the trial court sustained a contest to an affidavit of indigence
that appellant, Michael Tilotta, filed pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. On December 31, 2009,
the Clerk of this Court sent appellant a notice letter advising him that the August 25, 2009 order he was
appealing appeared to be an interlocutory one, not legally authorized to be appealed. In the letter, the Clerk
advised appellant that the Court might dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, unless, in a written
response, he provided a meritorious explanation showing that the Court had jurisdiction of the appeal.
Appellant has filed his response, conceding that the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken only from a final
judgment. Kossie v. Smith, No. 01-08-00065-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 1739 at *1 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st
Dist.] March 9, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.
2001)). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if allowed by statute. Kossie, at *1(citing Bally Total
Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001)). The August 25, 2009 interlocutory order from
which appellant has appealed is not an order that is made appealable by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008). Thus, we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the interlocutory
order that appellant has appealed. See Kossie at *2 (dismissing appeal of interlocutory order sustaining
contest to affidavit of indigence); Kilsby v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. of Tex., No. 14-07-00981-CV, 2008 Tex.
App. LEXIS 2380, (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 3, 2008, no pet.) (memo op.) (dismissing appeal of
interlocutory order sustaining challenge to affidavit of inability to pay costs); see also In re K. J. M., No.
02-08-038-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 1924 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth Mar. 13, 2008, no pet.) (memo op.)
(dismissing appeal of interlocutory order sustaining challenge to indigency affidavit and denying
appointment of counsel to represent appellant in habeas challenge to order of contempt in
child-support-enforcement action).

We dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Any pending motions are overruled as moot.


Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Hanks, and Bland.