With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". here. See Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 15.003 (Vernon Supp.2006), § 51.012 (Vernon 2003), § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2006). LMC cannot appeal the trial court’s findings of fact because the findings do not constitute a final judgment. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195 (“A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree.”). Rather, LMC’s remedy is to challenge the bond by seeking relief from the court of appeals in the cause in which the appeal is pending pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24. Tex.R.App. P. 24.4(a). We therefore dismiss appellate cause number 01-07-00126-CV for want of jurisdiction. See New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex.1990) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion We hold that the evidence is

A: holding that appellate courts assumption of jurisdiction over interlocutory order when not expressly authorized to do so by statute is fundamental jurisdictional error
B: holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error
C: holding error to be fundamental when record shows jurisdictional defect
D: holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts
A.