## 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 , Appellee s

On Appeal from the County Court at Law N o . 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 Assignment2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION
Inger Hall has appealed the trial court’s January 27, 2022 , summary judgment order.
Upon our review of the clerk’s record, f iled on March 31, 2022, we noted a potential defect in

the Court’s jurisdiction over this appeal.
Our jurisdiction is constitutional an d statutory in nature. See T EX

. C ONST . art. V, § 6;

T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 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, 202 2, 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 H all ’ s claims of

common

- law fraud, conversion of money , and negligence against the La w 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. M ayber ry, P.C., in this lawsuit and is appealable.”

In Lehmann , the Texas Supreme Court stat ed,
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 purp os es of ap peal if and only if either it actually disposes of all claims and parties then befor e 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 a t 19 2

– 9 3. 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 thi s Cour t t hat the trial court3

entered a severance order. As a result, it appears that the Janu ary 27 order is interlocutory and
we, therefore, are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
By letter dated March 31 , 202 2 , we notified Appellant of this pote nt ial def ect in our
jurisdiction and afforded her the opportunity to show this Court how it ha d jurisdiction over th e appeal notwithstanding the noted defect . We further informed Appellant that the failure to
respond by April 11 , 202 2 , would result in dis mi ssal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 jurisd iction, the

dismissal of thi s cas e w ould document counsel’s efforts to preserve appellant’s future right of
appeal.

We find that the trial court’s January 27 , 20 22 , order was not final and appealable.
Consequently, we are without jurisdiction over this appeal

.
We dismiss this a pp eal fo r want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chi ef Justice

Date Submitted : April 13 , 2022 Date Decided: April 14 , 2022