# Koffey Smith El-Bey v. the Estate of Robert C. Williams, and Peggy Ruth Williams as Independent of the Estate of Robert C. Wiliams

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · June 29, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9406760

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** June 29, 2023
- **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/9406760

## Opinion text

Opinion issued June 29, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-23-00070-CV
NO. 01-23-00073-CV
———————————
KOFFEY SMITH EL-BEY, Appellant
V.
THE ESTATE OF ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, DECEASED AND PEGGY
RUTH WILLIAMS AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 1197771 & 1197755

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Koffey Smith El-Bey attempts to appeal from the county court’s

interlocutory order, signed on March 25, 2023, entitled “Order For Statement of

Inability Affidavit.”

Generally, a Texas appellate court has jurisdiction to hear only an appeal from

a final judgment. Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992).

However, appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of

interlocutory orders if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v.

DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998); New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v.

Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex. 1990); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

§ 51.014 (statutory list of appealable interlocutory orders).

Here, the county court’s order denies appellant’s appeal of the justice court’s

order sustaining the contest of his statement of inability to pay. See TEX. R. CIV. P.

510.9(c)(4). Such order is not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order,

and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to eviction suits do not otherwise

provide a mechanism for appeal of such an order. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 500.3(e),

510.9; Brown v. Hawkins, No. 05-16-001427-CV, 2018 WL 1312467, at *4 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Mar. 14, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); Redlich v. Ranch, No. 02-14-

00390, 2015 WL 226038, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 15, 2015, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (stating, “We are aware of no statute that authorizes an appeal to this

2
court from the county court’s decision on appeal from the justice court denying

[appellant’s] attempt to appeal without furnishing a bond or paying a cash deposit”).

On April 6, 2023, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice stating that this Court

might dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response,

within 10 days of the notice, explaining how this Court has jurisdiction over this

appeal. Appellant did not respond to the notice.1

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction and for failing to

respond to this Court’s notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). We dismiss any

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.

1
Appellant filed an untimely and deficient motion for extension to file a response on
April 24, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b).
3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9406760. Public record. Not legal advice.