Emiabata v. Washington Mutual Bank

Appellee Washington Mutual Bank brought an expedited foreclosure proceeding against appellants Philip O. Emiabata and Sylvia Emiabata. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 736. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding, which the district court denied. This appeal followed.*fn1

On April 28, 2008, Washington Mutual filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Washington Mutual argues that this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the district court’s interlocutory order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss. We agree. Our appellate jurisdiction is limited to final judgments and those limited classes of interlocutory orders over which the legislature has given us jurisdiction. Majeski v. Estate of Majeski, 163 S.W.3d 102, 105 (Tex. App.–Austin 2005, no pet.) (citing Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998)). The legislature has not given us jurisdiction over an order denying a motion to dismiss an expedited foreclosure proceeding. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2007) (listing classes of interlocutory orders from which person may appeal); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 736(8)(A) (providing that granting or denial of foreclosure application pursuant to rule 736 “is not an appealable order.”).