Fourteenth Court of Appeals Dismisses Interlocutory Appeal of Orders Denying Motions to Correct Appellate Record

In the Interest of S.M.T. and S.J.T., Children, 14-25-01146-CV, April 16, 2026.

On appeal from 306th District Court, Galveston County, Texas

Synopsis

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals dismissed an attempted interlocutory appeal from trial-court orders denying motions to correct the court reporter’s record and clerk’s record in a pending SAPCR. The court held those record-correction orders are interlocutory, not final, and not independently appealable because no statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal from such orders.

Relevance to Family Law

This decision matters in family law because record disputes arise frequently in custody, enforcement, modification, and divorce litigation, especially where temporary orders, expedited hearings, and multiple post-hearing filings create a messy appellate record. The case is a reminder that practitioners cannot manufacture appellate jurisdiction by appealing a procedural order about the contents of the record; in SAPCRs and divorces alike, complaints about omissions, inaccuracies, or disputes over what belongs in the reporter’s or clerk’s record must be addressed through the proper procedural mechanisms and, absent a statutory basis, reviewed only in an appeal from a final judgment or through an appropriate extraordinary remedy.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The appeal arose from a pending suit affecting the parent-child relationship in the 306th District Court of Galveston County. The appellant attempted to bring an interlocutory appeal from two orders: one denying a motion to correct the court reporter’s record and another denying a motion to correct the clerk’s record.

The opinion is brief, but its reasoning makes the procedural posture clear. There was no final judgment disposing of all parties and claims in the SAPCR, and the appellant nevertheless sought immediate appellate review of the trial court’s refusal to alter or supplement the appellate record. The Fourteenth Court gave notice that it intended to dismiss for want of jurisdiction unless the appellant demonstrated a basis for jurisdiction. The response did not identify any valid jurisdictional hook.

Issues Decided

• Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to correct the court reporter’s record.
• Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to correct the clerk’s record.
• Whether any statutory exception authorized an immediate appeal from trial-court orders concerning correction of the appellate record in a pending SAPCR.

Rules Applied

The court relied on familiar Texas appellate-jurisdiction principles:

• Appeals generally lie only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
• An order that does not dispose of all parties and all claims is interlocutory and unappealable unless a statutory exception permits immediate review. Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
• No statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal from a trial court’s order relating to correction of the clerk’s record or reporter’s record.
• The court also referenced Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a) in giving notice of its intent to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Although the court did not elaborate on the record-correction rules themselves, the opinion implicitly distinguishes between procedures for correcting the appellate record and the separate question of whether an appellate court has jurisdiction to review a ruling about those procedures on an interlocutory basis.

Application

The Fourteenth Court treated the appeal as an attempted end-run around the final-judgment rule. The challenged orders did not resolve the SAPCR, did not dispose of all claims or parties, and did not fall within any recognized statutory category of appealable interlocutory orders. That was dispositive.

The court’s analysis was straightforward. It began with the baseline proposition that Texas appellate courts do not have general jurisdiction to review interlocutory rulings. From there, the court asked the only question that mattered: is there a statutory exception authorizing immediate appeal of orders denying motions to correct the reporter’s and clerk’s records? The answer was no. Once that premise was established, dismissal followed necessarily. The appellant’s response to the court’s jurisdictional notice did not cure that defect because a party cannot create interlocutory jurisdiction by argument where the Legislature has not granted it.

Holding

The court held that an order denying a motion to correct the court reporter’s record is interlocutory and not immediately appealable in the absence of statutory authorization. Because no statute permits an interlocutory appeal from that type of order, the court lacked jurisdiction.

The court likewise held that an order denying a motion to correct the clerk’s record is interlocutory and not immediately appealable absent a statutory exception. As no such exception applied, the appeal had to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, the strategic point is simple: disputes over the content of the appellate record do not themselves open the door to immediate appellate review. In a divorce, that may arise when a party claims an exhibit on characterization, reimbursement, or valuation was omitted. In a custody case, it may involve a missing in camera interview reference, bench ruling, or temporary-orders hearing transcript. In an enforcement or modification matter, it may concern whether a filing, proposed order, or admitted exhibit was actually part of the clerk’s file or reporter’s record. This case tells us that if the trial court denies a motion to correct the record, the losing party ordinarily cannot file a stand-alone interlocutory appeal and expect the court of appeals to reach the merits.

The practical consequence is that counsel must think about preservation and procedural vehicle much earlier. If the problem concerns the accuracy or completeness of the record, use the applicable record-correction procedures promptly and build a clear evidentiary basis for the requested correction. If the ruling causes immediate and irremediable harm, evaluate whether mandamus—not interlocutory appeal—is the proper tool. Otherwise, preserve the complaint and raise it in the appeal from the final judgment.

This is especially important in family cases because practitioners often deal with serial hearings, oral rulings, associate-judge proceedings, de novo requests, and emergency settings where the record can become fragmented. A jurisdictionally defective appeal wastes time, delays merits review, and can distract from obtaining a final, appealable judgment in the underlying case.

Checklists

Evaluating Appellate Jurisdiction Before Filing

• Confirm whether the challenged order disposes of all parties and all claims.
• If the order is interlocutory, identify the specific statute authorizing immediate appeal.
• Do not assume that a procedural ruling affecting the appellate record is independently appealable.
• Review Lehmann and the applicable interlocutory-appeal statutes before filing a notice of appeal.
• If no statutory basis exists, assess whether the complaint should be preserved for appeal after final judgment or pursued by mandamus.

Correcting the Reporter’s Record in Family Cases

• Identify the precise portion of testimony, bench ruling, or exhibit designation alleged to be inaccurate or omitted.
• Request correction promptly and with specificity.
• Support the request with transcripts, reporter notes, hearing dates, exhibit logs, and any stipulations available.
• Make sure the trial court signs a written ruling on the motion.
• Preserve all materials showing what should have been included in the record for later review if a final appeal becomes necessary.

Correcting the Clerk’s Record in Family Cases

• Specify the exact filing, order, exhibit, or docket item that is missing or incorrect.
• Verify whether the document was actually filed, admitted, or signed.
• Gather file-stamped copies, e-filing confirmations, proposed orders, and hearing references tying the document to the case.
• Request supplementation or correction through the proper procedural channel.
• Create a clean paper trail showing both the request and the trial court’s ruling.

Choosing the Right Remedy

• Ask whether the complained-of order is final, statutorily appealable, or neither.
• Consider mandamus if the ruling presents a clear abuse of discretion and there is no adequate appellate remedy.
• If immediate review is unavailable, preserve the issue for an appeal from the final judgment.
• Avoid filing a notice of appeal solely to challenge a nonappealable record-correction ruling.
• Use jurisdictional notices from the court of appeals as a signal to reevaluate remedy, not merely to reargue the merits.

Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Party’s Problem

• Do not conflate a dispute about the record with a jurisdictional basis for appellate review.
• Anticipate record problems during trial and hearing practice rather than after the fact.
• Ensure exhibits are formally offered, admitted, and clearly identified on the record.
• Request clarification of oral rulings before the hearing concludes.
• Obtain a final, appealable order whenever possible before initiating ordinary appellate review.

Citation

In the Interest of S.M.T. and S.J.T., Children, No. 14-25-01146-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 16, 2026, mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~2b2add45-ad15-4bbe-bfa4-a03c86cab18d~~