the Butchers failed to properly negate the jurisdictional facts in Hoag-land’s petition. I acknowledge that there are no cases that currently hold a defendant can amend its special appearance affidavit after an appeal, but there is some case law that would support such a procedure. See Dawson-Austin v. Austin, 968 S.W.2d 319, 322 (Tex.1998) (allowing amendment after an initial denial of the special appearance). And the Supreme Court has held that a defective affidavit does not convert a special appearance into a general one. Exito Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Trejo, 142 S.W.3d 302, 307-08 (Tex.2004). Our holding encourages an inefficient system as the Butchers may also be able to re-urge this issue on final appeal. See GJP, Inc. v. Ghosh, 251 S.W.3d 854, 866-67 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Canyon (Australia) Pty., Ltd. v. Maersk
holding that appellate jurisdiction to review special appearance rulings was not limited solely to interlocutory appeal authorized by section 51014a7 of the civil practice and remedies code holding that when a state commission has the right under section 6001 of the texas civil practice and remedies code to supersede an order the trial court cannot deny suspension of a temporary injunction under former rule 43a currently texrapp p 291b pending an interlocutory appeal holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial holding that appellate courts assumption of jurisdiction over interlocutory order when not expressly authorized to do so by statute is fundamental jurisdictional error holding this court lacks jurisdiction to consider interlocutory appeal where appellant relies solely on disputed facts