MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00250-CV

Julia CORNEJO, Individually, and as Trustee and Trustor of the Gilbert T. Cornejo, Jr. and 

Julia H. Cornejo Revocable Living Trust,

Appellant

v.

Robert CORNEJO,

Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-CI-07055

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 28, 2010

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellee Robert Cornejo (“Cornejo”) has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction, arguing that the trial court’s order granting summary judgment is a non-appealable 

interlocutory order. Appellant has not filed a response to Cornejo’s motion to dismiss.
04-10-00250-CV

- 2 -

In his third amended petition, Cornejo, plaintiff in the underlying cause, included causes 

of action against appellant for both trespass to try title as well as breach of fiduciary duty.1

A judgment or order is final for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all pending 

parties and claims before the court. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 

2001). Here, the trial court’s order granting Cornejo’s motion for summary judgment is 

interlocutory because it does not dispose of all parties and causes of action. Thus, it is not a final 

and appealable order. Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if a specific statute authorizes 

such an interlocutory appeal. For example, section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and 

Remedies Code lists circumstances under which a person may appeal from an interlocutory order 

of a district court, county court at law, or county court. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.

§ 51.014. We cannot, however, find any statutory authority that allows appellant to appeal from 

the trial court’s interlocutory order in this case.

Cornejo then filed a first amended motion for summary judgment on his trespass to try title 

claim. The trial court granted his first amended motion for summary judgment on his trespass to 

try title claim. Appellant then filed a notice of appeal, seeking to appeal the trial court’s grant of 

summary judgment with regard to Cornejo’s trespass to try title claim. However, as pointed out 

by Cornejo in his motion to dismiss, his breach of fiduciary duty claim is still pending in the trial 

court. Thus, Cornejo argues that the trial court’s order is interlocutory, and we do not have 

jurisdiction over this appeal. We agree.

We, therefore, grant Cornejo’s motion to dismiss and dismiss this appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We note that in his motion to dismiss, Cornejo also requests that we award him 

 1 The clerk’s record, by request of appellant, did not include Cornejo’s third amended petition, but only included his 

original petition, which alleged a trespass to try title action. Noting that the clerk’s record did not include his third 

amended petition, which added his claim for breach of fiduciary duty, Cornejo requested that the trial court clerk file 

a supplemental clerk’s record. 
04-10-00250-CV

- 3 -

damages under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 45, arguing that appellant filed a frivolous 

appeal. We, however, are not inclined to grant Cornejo’s request for damages.

PER CURIAM