A Texas court has dismissed an appeal filed by Christopher M. Perricone in a family law dispute against Katie Beth Perricone and others. The Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District, ruled on June 18, 2026, that the appeal was premature because the trial court had not issued an appealable order. This decision affects the ongoing legal proceedings involving the Perricones and clarifies the requirements for appeals in Texas family law cases.
The case, numbered 11-25-00259-CV, stems from a series of legal motions filed by Christopher Perricone. He initially sought to appeal an order denying his motion to file a notice of nonsuit out of time and to abate a Rule 91a hearing. The court found that the order he sought to appeal was not final, which is a requirement for an appeal to proceed.
The parties involved in this case are Christopher M. Perricone, the appellant, and Katie Beth Perricone, along with other defendants. The dispute arose from various motions filed in the 29th District Court in Palo Pinto County, Texas. Christopher Perricone filed a notice of appeal on September 5, 2025, after the trial court denied his motions. However, the court indicated that the order was not appealable.
As the case progressed, Christopher Perricone continued to file notices of appeal, including one on October 3, 2025, related to an order granting a defendant’s Rule 91a motion. This motion dismissed some of his claims but did not resolve all issues in the case. The court reiterated that an appeal could only be considered if there was a final judgment or an order that disposed of all claims.
The court ruled that the trial court had not entered an appealable order. Chief Justice John M. Bailey, along with Justices Trotter and Williams, agreed on the ruling. The court stated, “The trial court has not entered an appealable order or final judgment in the proceedings below, and we are without jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s appeal at this time.”
This ruling emphasizes the importance of having a final judgment or an order that clearly states its finality before an appeal can be considered. The court noted that the trial court’s orders did not dispose of all parties or claims, nor did they include clear language indicating finality. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, allowing Christopher Perricone the opportunity to file a new notice of appeal once a final order is issued.
The dismissal of this appeal has significant implications for Christopher Perricone and the ongoing family law case. It highlights the procedural requirements for appeals in Texas and serves as a reminder that parties must ensure that they are appealing from an order that meets the necessary legal standards. This ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, as it reinforces the need for clarity in legal orders.
Moving forward, Christopher Perricone can still pursue his claims once the trial court issues an appealable order. The court's dismissal does not affect the merits of his case or the issues raised in his appeal. It merely indicates that the current appeal was not properly before the court.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether there are any related cases pending or if Christopher Perricone plans to appeal again once a final judgment is entered. The court has made it clear that the dismissal does not preclude him from seeking an appeal in the future.