In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-22-00010-CV

INGER HALL, Appellant

V.

HERMAN TYESKIE AND LAW OFFICE OF MYLA G. MAYBERRY, P.C., 

INDIVIDUALLY/JOINTLY, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-2260-CCL2

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and Carter,* JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

____________________

*Jack Carter, Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Inger Hall has appealed the trial court’s January 27, 2022, summary judgment order. 

Upon our review of the clerk’s record, filed on March 31, 2022, we noted a potential defect in 

the Court’s jurisdiction over this appeal.

Our jurisdiction is constitutional and statutory in nature. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6; 

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220 (Supp.). Unless we are given specific authority over an 

interlocutory appeal from a particular type of order, we have jurisdiction only over appeals from 

final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The trial court’s 

January 27, 2022, summary judgment order does not appear to dispose of all claims and parties 

in the litigation. The January 27 order, on its face, addresses and dismisses only Hall’s claims of 

common-law fraud, conversion of money, and negligence against the Law Office of Mayla G. 

Mayberry, P.C. The last sentence of the order states, “This judgment finally disposes of all 

claims against Defendant, Law Office of Myla G. Mayberry, P.C., in this lawsuit and is 

appealable.” 

In Lehmann, the Texas Supreme Court stated, 

We . . . hold that in cases in which only one final and appealable judgment can be 

rendered, a judgment issued without a conventional trial is final for purposes of

appeal if and only if either it actually disposes of all claims and parties then 

before the court, regardless of its language, or it states with unmistakable clarity 

that it is a final judgment as to all claims and all parties.

Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 192–93. The trial court’s January 27 order does not dispose of all claims 

and parties and does not, with unmistakable clarity, state that it is final as to all claims and all 

parties. Further, there is no indication in the record currently before this Court that the trial court 
3

entered a severance order. As a result, it appears that the January 27 order is interlocutory and 

we, therefore, are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

By letter dated March 31, 2022, we notified Appellant of this potential defect in our 

jurisdiction and afforded her the opportunity to show this Court how it had jurisdiction over the

appeal notwithstanding the noted defect. We further informed Appellant that the failure to 

respond by April 11, 2022, would result in dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant’s response to our letter agreed with our assessment of 

Lehmann but stated that, if the notice of appeal failed to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, the 

dismissal of this case would document counsel’s efforts to preserve appellant’s future right of 

appeal. 

We find that the trial court’s January 27, 2022, order was not final and appealable. 

Consequently, we are without jurisdiction over this appeal. 

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: April 13, 2022

Date Decided: April 14, 2022