## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Tex as a t Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00156

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023

- 001176 -1

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr 

### L

AIMA 

### F. B ROWN 

### , Appellant

V



### . T

- U NIVERSAL 

### C OPR



### . , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this eviction case involving pro se Appellant L aima F. Brown and Appellee
T- Universal Cop r., 1 Brown attempts to appeal from the trial court ’ s May 4, 2023 order denying her postjudgment motion for injunctive relief. 2 We wrot e to Brown to
express our con cern that we lack ed jurisdiction over this appeal because the order t hat she app ealed d id not appear to be a final judgment or appealable postjudgment order.
We warned her that unless she or any other party filed a r espo nse within ten days
showi ng groun ds for continuing the appeal , we could dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdic tion. See Tex. R. App. P. 42 .3(a), 44.3. Brown has filed two documents in response, but neither addresses our jurisdictional concerns

. We have ju ri sdiction over app eals from final judgmen ts and from certain
in terlocutory orders ma de appealable by s tatute. See L ehman n v. H ar
- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) ; see also M cF adin v. Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC , 539 S.W.3 d 278, 283 (Tex. 2018) . “[W] hen a final judgment exists, a subsequent order that has no effect except to enforce provisions of the judgment does not qualify as

1 Althou gh Appellee ’ s name is spe lled “T- Universal C o rp. ” in the agreed final judgment, w e spell A ppelle e’s name as it appear s in the noti ce of appeal and the complained

- of order

.
2 Bro wn did not appeal f rom or supersede the trial court ’ s March 22, 2 02 3 agreed fina l judgment , which awarded T- Universal po s session of the real property that B rown o ccup i ed , ord ered Brow n to vacate the property by A p ril 22, 2 02 3 , and stated that a wri t of possession would issue on or after April 23, 202 3. The agreed judgment

— wh ich was si gned by Brown and T

- Univers al ’s attorney

— also stated that B r own waived her right to appe al.3 another final judgment subject to appeal .” M cFadin , 539 S.W.3d at 284. Bu t a postjudgment order th at imposes obligations in add ition to or in excess of those in a final judgmen t is appe alable, provided that the o rder disposes of all pe nding issues and p arties. Id. Here, the order denying B rown ’ s postjudgme nt motion is no t a final jud gment
. Nor does it impose obligations in add itio n to or in excess of those in the final judgment ; i ndeed, the order awards no relief at all

. 3 Cf. Knoles v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A

. , No. 05

- 12

- 00473

- CV, 2012 WL 6 685448 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Dec. 21, 2012, no pet. ) (mem. op.) ( dismiss ing appeal for w ant of jurisdiction after concluding
that nothing in the record suggested that order denying appellant ’s emergency mot ion to quash or stay writ of execution was issue d for a purpose other than to aid in the
enforcement of the judgm e nt ). Because the order d enyi ng B rown ’ s postju d gment motion for injunctive relief is neither a final judgment nor an appealable order, we
dismi ss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42. 3(a) , 43

. 2(f).

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr E lizabeth Kerr Justice
Delivere d: June 22, 2023

3 Brown ’ s motion for injunctive relief is diff icult to de cipher , but we inte rpret it
as an attempt to prevent T- Univers al from enforcing the agreed judgment by obtai n ing and exe cuting a wr it of possession

.