The Texas Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal filed by Henry B. Berrocal against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and others, due to a lack of jurisdiction. The court ruled that there were no signed orders or judgments in the case, which is required for an appeal to proceed. This decision affects Berrocal, who was seeking to challenge a trial court's refusal to execute a written order related to his emergency application for a writ of sequestration.
The case, docketed as 04-26-00473-CV, began when Berrocal filed a notice of interlocutory appeal and an emergency motion for temporary relief on June 15, 2026. However, the court denied his motion for temporary relief just two days later, on June 17, 2026. Berrocal's appeal aimed to challenge what he described as a “constructive denial and explicit refusal” by the trial court to sign an order on his application.
In response to an inquiry from the appellate court, the Bexar County District Clerk’s Office confirmed that no judgments or orders had been signed in the case. The court noted that its jurisdiction is limited to appeals from written, signed final judgments and appealable interlocutory orders. The court referenced previous cases to support its ruling, emphasizing the necessity of a signed order for an appeal to be valid.
On June 17, 2026, the district clerk filed the clerk’s record, which did not contain any written orders or judgments. This absence of documentation led the court to order Berrocal to show cause in writing by July 2, 2026, explaining why the appeal should not be dismissed. The court warned that failure to provide a satisfactory response would result in dismissal.
In his responses to the court's show cause order, Berrocal acknowledged that a written judgment is typically required to establish appellate jurisdiction. However, he argued that Texas law recognizes an exception when a trial court actively obstructs the entry of a signed order, thereby preventing appellate review. Despite this claim, Berrocal did not cite any legal authority to support his assertion.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating, "Because no appealable judgment or order has been signed in the underlying case, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing by July 2, 2026 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction." The ruling was delivered per curiam, meaning it was issued by the court as a whole rather than by a specific judge.
This decision has implications for Berrocal and others in similar situations. It underscores the importance of having signed orders in legal proceedings to ensure that appeals can be properly filed and heard. Without such documentation, litigants may find themselves unable to seek appellate review, even if they believe their case merits further examination.
The dismissal also highlights the procedural requirements in Texas appellate courts, where strict adherence to rules regarding written judgments is necessary. This ruling may serve as a reminder to other litigants about the importance of ensuring that all necessary documents are in place before initiating an appeal.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Berrocal will seek further legal action in this matter. The court's decision may be appealed to a higher court, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. Additionally, Berrocal had filed a separate petition for a writ of mandamus, which was also denied by the court shortly before the dismissal of his appeal.
In conclusion, the Texas Court of Appeals' dismissal of Berrocal's appeal due to a lack of jurisdiction serves as a significant reminder of the procedural requirements necessary for legal appeals. It emphasizes the need for litigants to ensure that all necessary orders and judgments are in place to facilitate their right to appeal.