05-06-00062-CV

DISMISSED; Opinion Filed March 31, 2009.

In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-06-00062-CV
............................
LINDA SPROWL AND JENNIFER SPROWL, Appellants
V.
GEORGE MARTIN PAYNE, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 05-14973
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Mazzant
Opinion By Justice Lang-Miers
  Linda Sprowl and her daughter, Jennifer Sprowl, appealed from the trial court's order dismissing her
petition to adjudicate George Martin Payne as Jennifer's father. We originally dismissed the appeal
because appellants did not pay for the record and did not timely file affidavits of indigence. Sprowl v.
Payne, No. 05-06-00062-CV, 2006 WL 1194458 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006) (mem. op.), rev'd, 236 S.W.3d
786 (Tex. 2007). Appellants petitioned for review in the Texas Supreme Court. The supreme court
reversed this Court's judgment and held that the failure to file an affidavit of indigence with or before the
notice of appeal will not support an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence unless the
appellant is given a reasonable time to correct the defect and fails to do so. Sprowl v. Payne, 236 S.W.3d
786, 787 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam). It remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings. Id.
  We ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing on Linda Sprowl's claim of indigence and to file a
supplemental record containing the court's written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court
concluded that appellant is indigent. Because we conclude that the Court does not have jurisdiction over
this appeal, we dismiss the appeal.
  Appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and such interlocutory orders as the legislature
deems appealable. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); City of Houston v.
Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 811 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014
(a), (d) (Vernon 2008). A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and
claims in the record. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. The Texas Family Code provides that “[a] party to an
adjudication of paternity may challenge the adjudication only under the laws of this state relating to
appeal, the vacating of judgments, or other judicial review.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.637(e) (Vernon
2008).
  The record shows that this lawsuit, styled “Linda Sprowl and Jennifer Sprowl, Petitioners,” was filed in
August 2005 after Jennifer Sprowl became an adult. The trial court's order from which appellants filed
their notice of appeal dismissed Linda Sprowl's claims on res judicata grounds. However, the order did not
dispose of Jennifer Sprowl's claims. We asked the parties to file letter briefs explaining why this Court has
jurisdiction over this appeal. After considering the additional arguments, we conclude that there is no final
judgment in this case because Jennifer Sprowl's claims were not disposed of by the trial court's order
dismissing Linda Sprowl's claims. And there is no statutory exception that allows Linda Sprowl to appeal
an interlocutory order. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; City of Houston, 849 S.W.2d at 811.         
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                    
                                                    ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
                                                    JUSTICE

060062F.P05


File Date[03/31/2009]
File Name[060062F]
File Locator[03/31/2009-060062F]