What did the court decide?

The appellate court dismissed the appeal because it lacked jurisdiction — the record contained interlocutory orders that are not appealable, and no final judgment was presented.

Who is affected by this decision?

Appellant Bianca Fox is directly affected because her appeal was dismissed; the appellee (CYPRESS at Stone Oak) is no longer subject to this appeal at the appellate level.

What happens next in the trial court?

Proceedings in the trial court continue unaffected; any orders requiring compliance (such as the subpoena order) remain in force unless the trial court alters them.

Can this dismissal be appealed?

A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is typically final as to this appeal, but the appellant may seek other relief in the trial court (e.g., ask for a final judgment or a properly authorized interlocutory appeal) before filing a new appeal.

Bianca Fox v. Cypress at Stone Oak

Docket 04-26-00120-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDismissed

Filed: Apr 8, 2026 · 3 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 04-26-00120-CV

Appeal from interlocutory orders in a county court at law proceeding, argued to be a challenge to a turnover order

Summary

The court dismissed Bianca Fox's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Fox, pro se, filed a notice of appeal purporting to challenge a January 30, 2026 turnover order, but the clerk’s record contains only two interlocutory orders from that date — denial of her motion for protection and an order to comply with a subpoena — neither of which is an appealable final judgment or an authorized interlocutory appeal. The court gave Fox an opportunity to show cause why the appeal should proceed; she did not respond, so the appeal was dismissed and pending motions were denied as moot.

Issues Decided

Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the orders before it (denial of a motion for protection and an order to comply with a subpoena)
Whether the orders in the clerk's record constitute a final judgment or an interlocutory order authorized for appeal

Court's Reasoning

Texas appellate courts can review only final judgments or interlocutory orders that the legislature or rules authorize for appeal. The record did not contain a final judgment or any interlocutory order that the court may review on appeal (orders denying protection and compelling compliance with a subpoena are not appealable). The appellant failed to respond to the court's show-cause order, so the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Authorities Cited

McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC539 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. 2018)
Pelt v. State Bd. Of Ins.802 S.W.2d 822 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, no writ)
RWLS L.L.C. v. Gray Wireline Service, Inc.359 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied)
Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)

Parties

Appellant: Bianca Fox
Appellee: CYPRESS at Stone Oak
Judge: David J. Rodriguez

Key Dates

trial_court_case_number: 2023-01-01
orders_signed: 2026-01-30
notice_of_appeal_filed: 2026-02-12
show_cause_deadline: 2026-03-18
opinion_filed: 2026-04-08

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult an attorney
Talk with counsel about whether the underlying matter can produce an appealable final judgment or whether a different interlocutory procedure (such as a mandamus) is appropriate.
2
Return to trial court
If the goal is appellate review, pursue resolution in the trial court that results in a final judgment or seek trial-court relief that creates an appealable order.
3
Consider alternative appellate remedies
If an interlocutory order is believed to be improperly issued, discuss with counsel whether to pursue mandamus relief rather than a direct appeal.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court dismissed the appeal because it lacked jurisdiction — the record contained interlocutory orders that are not appealable, and no final judgment was presented.
Who is affected by this decision?: Appellant Bianca Fox is directly affected because her appeal was dismissed; the appellee (CYPRESS at Stone Oak) is no longer subject to this appeal at the appellate level.
What happens next in the trial court?: Proceedings in the trial court continue unaffected; any orders requiring compliance (such as the subpoena order) remain in force unless the trial court alters them.
Can this dismissal be appealed?: A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is typically final as to this appeal, but the appellant may seek other relief in the trial court (e.g., ask for a final judgment or a properly authorized interlocutory appeal) before filing a new appeal.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-26-00120-CV

Bianca FOX,
Appellant

CYPRESS at Stone Oak,
Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2023-CV-01033
Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2026

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On February 12, 2026, appellant Bianca Fox, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal

purporting to appeal a turnover order signed on January 30, 2026. The clerk’s record contains no

turnover order signed on January 30, 2026. Instead, the clerk’s record contains two interlocutory

orders signed on January 30, 2026, those being: (1) an order denying Fox’s motion for protection,

and (2) an order requiring Fox to comply with a subpoena. It appears that Fox intends to appeal

from these interlocutory orders. See Pelt v. State Bd. Of Ins., 802 S.W.2d 822, 826 (Tex. App.—
04-26-00120-CV

Austin 1990, no writ) (holding that an order denying a motion to quash subpoena is not

appealable); see also RWLS L.L.C. v. Gray Wireline Service, Inc., 359 S.W.3d 927, 928 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (per curiam, sub. op. on reh’g) (holding that an

order denying stay and compelling compliance with subpoena is not appealable).

“Unless specifically authorized by statute, Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only to

review final judgments.” McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC, 539 S.W.3d 278, 283 (Tex.

2018). Accordingly, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing by March 18, 2026, why

this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has filed no response.

Because neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory order that may afford an authorized

interlocutory appeal has been signed in the underlying cause, this appeal is dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a) (appellate court may dismiss an appeal for lack of

jurisdiction).

PER CURIAM

1
All pending motions are denied as moot.

-2-