 
 




                                      In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                            ____________________
                               NO. 09-18-00034-CV
                            ____________________

                         GEORGE DANNER, Appellant

                                         V.

                        KATHRYN DANNER, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 418th District Court
                         Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 17-03-04143-CV
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      George Danner filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s January 4, 2018

Order Finding Alleged Partition and Exchange Agreement Unenforceable. On

January 30, 2018, the appellee, Kathryn Danner, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal

on the ground that the order was interlocutory and not subject to accelerated appeal.

Appellant did not file a response to the motion to dismiss.

      Generally, temporary orders in a divorce case may not be immediately

appealed. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.507 (West 2006). Because the order does

                                          1
 
 
 




not dispose of all issues before the trial court and it has not been severed, it is an

interlocutory order not subject to immediate appeal. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.,

39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

       Appellee requests that we award her “just damages” in an unspecified amount

because the appeal is frivolous. See Tex. R. App. P. 45. “Rule 45 does not mandate

that this court award just damages in every case in which an appeal is frivolous;

rather the decision to award such damages is a matter within this court’s discretion,

which we exercise with prudence and caution after careful deliberation.” Glassman

v. Goodfriend, 347 S.W.3d 772, 782 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet.

denied). We deny Appellee’s request for Rule 45 damages.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.



                                                 ________________________________
                                                        CHARLES KREGER
                                                              Justice

Submitted on March 7, 2018
Opinion Delivered March 8, 2018

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.




                                             2
 
