Opinion by Justice Wilson, 14-23-00899-CV, February 03, 2026.
On appeal from the 127th District Court of Harris County
Synopsis
The domestication of a foreign order under Chapter 35 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code results in an interlocutory Texas order rather than a final judgment if the underlying foreign order is not final on its face. Because no statutory authority permits an interlocutory appeal from such a filing, and in the absence of a trial court ruling on motions to vacate, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear the challenge.
Relevance to Family Law
For family law litigators, this case serves as a critical warning regarding the “domestication” of out-of-state interlocutory orders, such as temporary custody orders, bifurcated divorce decrees, or interim support modifications. Practitioners often erroneously assume that filing any foreign order under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) automatically transforms it into an appealable Texas judgment. This opinion clarifies that if the foreign order is interlocutory in its home state, it remains interlocutory in Texas, potentially trapping a party in a jurisdictional no-man’s-land where the order is “domesticated” but cannot be appealed until the entire Texas proceeding—including any motions to vacate—is finalized.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The dispute originated from a South Carolina lawsuit involving asbestos-related wrongful death claims against Payne & Keller, a Texas corporation dissolved in 1986. A South Carolina trial court appointed a receiver for the dissolved corporation. The receiver sought to revoke the corporation’s 1986 dissolution under Section 11.153 of the Texas Business Organizations Code, alleging constructive fraud. The South Carolina court issued an order denying a motion to dismiss and allowing the receiver’s claims to proceed, effectively reviving the entity for litigation purposes.
The receiver then filed a proceeding in Harris County, Texas, under Chapter 35 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code to domesticate this South Carolina order. Within the statutory thirty-day window, National Union Fire Insurance Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (the “Insurers”) filed pleas in intervention and motions to vacate the order. The Harris County trial court took no action on these motions. The Insurers appealed the filing, treating it as a final judgment. The receiver moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the Insurers lacked standing and that the court lacked jurisdiction over an interlocutory order.
Issues Decided
- Whether third-party insurers, who were parties to the underlying foreign litigation but not named in the specific domesticated order, have standing to appeal the domestication in Texas.
- Whether the filing of a foreign order that is interlocutory on its face under Chapter 35 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code creates a final, appealable Texas judgment.
- Whether an appellate court has jurisdiction to review the domestication of a foreign order when the trial court has not yet ruled on pending motions to vacate.
Rules Applied
The Court primarily applied Chapter 35 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (the Texas version of the UEFJA), which provides that a filed foreign judgment has the same effect as a judgment of the court in which it is filed. However, this applies only to a “foreign judgment,” defined as a judgment, decree, or order entitled to full faith and credit. The Court also relied on the general rule that appellate jurisdiction is limited to final judgments unless a statute specifically authorizes an interlocutory appeal. Furthermore, the Court examined Texas Business Organizations Code Section 11.153 regarding the revocation of an entity’s termination.
Application
The Court first addressed standing, determining that the Insurers were “parties” to the Texas proceeding because they filed timely pleas in intervention and motions to vacate under Section 35.003. Turning to the jurisdictional merits, the Court analyzed the character of the South Carolina order. Under Texas law, for a foreign order to be treated as a final judgment under the UEFJA, it must be final and enforceable in the state where it was rendered.
The South Carolina order in question was clearly interlocutory; it resolved a preliminary issue regarding corporate dissolution and the receiver’s authority but did not dispose of the underlying wrongful death or insurance coverage claims. The Court reasoned that simply filing an interlocutory foreign order under Chapter 35 does not “upgrade” its status to a final Texas judgment. Because the order was interlocutory on its face, its filing in Harris County created an interlocutory Texas order. Since the Insurers’ motions to vacate remained pending and there is no Texas statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal from a Chapter 35 filing, the appellate court had no choice but to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Holding
The Court held that the Insurers had standing to participate in the appeal as they had properly intervened in the trial court proceeding.
The Court further held that the filing of a foreign order that is not final on its face under Chapter 35 results in an interlocutory order in Texas. Consequently, such an order is not subject to appeal as a final judgment.
Finally, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial court had not issued a final judgment and no statutory exception for an interlocutory appeal applied to the domestication of a non-final foreign order.
Practical Application
When dealing with out-of-state litigation, practitioners must distinguish between the registration of a foreign order for enforcement purposes and the finality of that order for appellate purposes. If you represent a party seeking to domesticate a foreign custody or property order that does not dispose of all parties and issues in the originating state, do not rely on a Chapter 35 filing to create an immediately appealable event. Conversely, if you are defending against such a domestication, filing a motion to vacate prevents the order from becoming a final, enforceable judgment until the trial court explicitly rules on your motion.
Checklists
Determining Finality for Domestication
- Review the foreign order for “face-of-the-record” finality. Does it dispose of all parties and all claims in the originating jurisdiction?
- Check the originating state’s appellate rules to see if the order is considered “final” there.
- Determine if the order is entitled to Full Faith and Credit (interlocutory orders generally are not).
Challenging a Chapter 35 Filing
- File a Plea in Intervention immediately if your client was not a named party in the foreign order but is affected by it.
- File a Motion to Vacate within 30 days of the filing of the foreign judgment.
- Ensure the trial court sets a hearing; if the court does not rule, the order remains interlocutory and unappealable.
- Monitor for “automatic” enforcement actions; remind the clerk and the court that an interlocutory domestication does not carry the same weight as a final judgment.
Citation
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company v. Payne & Keller Company, By and Through its Duly-Appointed Receiver, Peter D. Protopapas, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2026, no pet.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized in high-stakes interstate custody and property disputes. If an opposing party attempts to domesticate a “temporary” order from another state (e.g., a South Carolina order granting temporary primary custody or an interim distribution of marital assets) under Chapter 35 to gain immediate enforcement leverage in Texas, the practitioner should immediately intervene and move to vacate.
Because the domestication remains interlocutory, the opposing party cannot appeal the Texas court’s refusal to enforce the order as a final judgment. This effectively freezes the enforcement of the foreign “interlocutory” order in Texas, forcing the litigation back to the originating state or requiring the opponent to jump through the more rigorous hoops of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) or other specific statutes, rather than the streamlined UEFJA process. This creates a strategic delay and prevents the “shortcut” domestication of non-final foreign decrees.
~~194c25a7-136b-4c97-b5d0-ce67f995b2a9~~
Share this content: