of M. O. W. (Nov. 7, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Interest of M. O. W.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Texas (TX)
Court
Texas Supreme Court
Decided
Nov. 7, 2025
Disposition
Dismissed
Interest of M. O. W., Not Reported in S.W. Rptr. (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 3114015Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.SEE TX R RAP RULE 47.2 FORDESIGNATION AND SIGNING OF OPINIONS.Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.In the INTEREST OF M. O. W.NO. 03-25-00705-CV|Filed: November 7, 2025FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVISCOUNTY, NO. D-1-FM-24-008870, THE HONORABLEMARY ANN MORTON, JUDGE PRESIDINGAttorneys and Law FirmsOliver Densil Watts, for Appellant.Sarah Longhofer, Nicole Loya, Deterrean Gamble, MatthewDeal, for Appellees The State of Texas, Reese, ShandelynDior.Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and TheofanisMEMORANDUM OPINIONGisela D. Triana, Justice*1 Appellant Oliver Densil Watts filed a notice of appealfrom the trial court's September 11, 2025 order “denying hisSpecial Appearance and Motion to Dismiss” and stated theappeal is taken “pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §51.014(a)(7) and Tex. R. App. P. 28.1.”1 The underlying suitarises from a Uniform Interstate Family Support Act Petitionfiled by the Attorney General of Texas pursuant to TexasFamily Code Chapter 159.Upon initial review, the Clerk of this Court sent Watts a letterinforming him that this Court appears to lack jurisdictionover the appeal because the September 11, 2025 order in theclerk's record does not appear to be a final or appealablejudgment or order, and our jurisdiction is limited to appealsin which there exists a final or appealable judgment or order.See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.012; Lehmann v.Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explainingthat appeal generally may only be taken from final judgmentthat disposes of all pending parties and claims in recordunless statute provides for interlocutory appeal). The Courtexplained that the statute upon which Watts relies in this caseexpressly precludes an interlocutory appeal from the denial ofa defendant's special appearance in a suit brought under theFamily Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(7) (permitting interlocutory appeal from trial court's ordergranting or denying “the special appearance of a defendantunder Rule 120a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, except in asuit brought under the Family Code” (emphasis added)).The Clerk requested a response from Watts explaining anybasis that exists for this Court's jurisdiction. Watts filed aresponse and a supplemental response. In his responses, inaddition to arguing the merits of his special appearance,he contends that the trial court's September 11, 2025 orderis reviewable on appeal because “not every matter locatedwithin the Family Code qualifies as a ‘suit brought under’ it.”He argues that Uniform Interstate Family Support Act actions“are statutory civil enforcement proceedings between states,governed procedurally by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedurerather than by the Title 5 family-relations framework.” Wattscites cases that he argues support this proposition or thathe asserts are examples of cases where Texas courts haveentertained interlocutory appeals from denials of specialappearances in family-related cases. Some of these casesappear to be AI hallucinations—they do not exist. Theremaining ones do not support the propositions of law thathe asserts they do. We have found no case allowing aninterlocutory appeal from a trial court's order denying aspecial appearance in a Uniform Interstate Family SupportAct case or any other case brought under the Family Code.The trial court's September 11, 2025 order is neither a final,appealable order nor an appealable interlocutory order. SeeLehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998) (“Appellate courts have jurisdictionto consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders onlyif a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction.”); seealso Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 § 51.014(a)(7) (expressly excluding suits brought under Family Codefrom category of permissible interlocutory appeals fromtrial court's order granting or denying defendant's specialappearance).*2 Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, we dismissthe appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
Interest of M. O. W., Not Reported in S.W. Rptr. (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2All CitationsNot Reported in S.W. Rptr., 2025 WL 3114015Footnotes1Watts describes the order as the “September 10, 2025” order denying his special appearance and motion todismiss, but the trial court signed the order on September 11, 2025.End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access