# Gilbert Carrisalez v. Carlos Benitez D/B/A Civil Judgment Enforcement Services

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · October 2, 2014

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3095768

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** October 2, 2014
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3095768

## Opinion text

Opinion issued October 2, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00414-CV
———————————
GILBERT CARRISALEZ, Appellant
V.
CARLOS BENITEZ D/B/A CIVIL JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT
SERVICES, Appellee

On Appeal from the Harris County Civil Court at Law No. 2
Trial Court Case No. 867420-801

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Gilbert Carrisalez, filed a Notice of Appeal from an interlocutory

order denying his motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment. Appellee, Carlos

Benitez, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Texas appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments, and

interlocutory orders are appealable only if specified by statute. See Bison Bldg.

Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); Stary v. DeBord,

967 S.W.2d 352, 352-353 (Tex. 1998). Writs of garnishment are not classified as

injunctive orders, and therefore a party has no right of interlocutory appeal from an

order denying a motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment. Fogel v First

Republicbank Eldridge, N.A., Nos. C14-87-894-CV, A14-87-895-CV, 1987 WL

27079 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] December 10, 1987, no writ).

The order appealed from here is not a final judgment, and no statute allows

for an interlocutory appeal in this case. Id. Indeed, after Benitez moved to

dismiss, Carrisalez filed a response acknowledging that we lack jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3095768. Public record. Not legal advice.