Yammine v. Propel Financial Services — Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Case
Wally Yammine v. Propel Financial Services, LLC, as Agent and Attorney in Fact for Propel Funding National 1, LLC, Home Tax Solutions, LLC, HK REO, LLC, Casey Lending, and Propel National Funding
Court
Texas Second Court of Appeals
Judge
Womack; Wallach; Walker
Date Decided
August 13, 2026
Docket No.
02-24-00270-CV
Topics
Appellate Jurisdiction; Notice of Appeal; Interlocutory Orders; Fraudulent Liens
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Wally Yammine, individually and as trustee for the 813 Opal Trust, sued twelve defendants for wrongful foreclosure. Defendant HK REO, LLC sought summary judicial removal under Texas Government Code Section 51.903 of three liens that Yammine had filed concerning the property at issue. On March 6, 2024, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the instruments purporting to create those liens.

Five defendants also moved to strike as frivolous the claims Yammine asserted as trustee. On May 2, 2024, the trial court struck the 813 Opal Trust’s claims but expressly left Yammine’s individual claims unaffected. Yammine filed a notice of appeal on June 14, 2024, referencing both rulings. His later appellate brief challenged only the May order, while an updated notice of appeal identified only the March lien findings.

The Court’s Holding

The Second Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. As to the March lien findings, the court held that review was subject to the accelerated-appeal deadline because Section 51.903 requires expedited appellate review. Yammine’s notice, filed more than twenty days after the findings were signed, was untimely regardless of whether the findings were treated as interlocutory or final and appealable.

The court also lacked jurisdiction to review the May order. That order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of every claim and party and expressly left Yammine’s individual claims pending. Nor was it an appealable interlocutory order: Yammine identified no statutory authority permitting an immediate appeal from an order partially striking a pleading, and the court found none. The court did not address the merits of Yammine’s underlying claims and denied his request to file an amended brief as moot.

Key Takeaways

  • An appeal from findings issued under Texas Government Code Section 51.903 is governed by the accelerated-appeal deadlines.
  • A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.
  • An order striking some claims remains interlocutory when other claims are expressly left pending, and it is not immediately appealable without statutory authorization.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that expedited statutory proceedings can trigger shortened appellate deadlines even when the status of the challenged ruling as final or interlocutory is disputed. Litigants seeking review of Section 51.903 lien findings must act within the accelerated timetable.

It also illustrates the limits of Texas appellate jurisdiction over partial pleading orders. Unless an order finally resolves the entire case or falls within a statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal, review generally must await a final judgment.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top