## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 13 - 00453 - CV

JERRY LOFTIN APPELLANT
V. DAVID HARVEY, JANET HARVEY, KENNETH HARVEY, JANI CE SCHATTMAN, AND LYNNE MILLFORD APPELLEES

---------- FROM THE 231ST DISTR ICT COURT OF TARR ANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 231

- 336866

- 02

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Jerry Loftin attempts to appeal from the visiting trial judge’s judgment denying his requests advanced in his seventh amended petition for intervention in a family law case (1) that Appellees Janet Harvey, Kenneth Harvey (the Harveys), and David Harvey (David) pay his attorney’s fees and (2)

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 that they and their counsel or former counsel, Appellees Janice Schattman and Lynne Millford , pay sanctions. The Harveys and Schattman filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, and David filed a similar motion to dismiss. Both motions contend that the judgment is not final because it does not dispose of all issues. Specifically, the supplemental pet ition to terminate David’s parental relationship with the child at the center of the litigation, filed before the judgment was signed, remains pending. Neither Loftin nor Millford has filed a response to the motions to dismiss the appeal. We have appellat e jurisdiction of appeals from final judgments and from interlocutory orders that the legislature has specified are appealable. 2 To be final and appealable, a judgment must dispose of all parties and all issues. 3 The judgment here disposed of Loftin’s se venth amended petition in intervention, and other matters had been resolved earlier in the suit. But t he appellate record reflects that the supplemental petition to terminate David’s parental rights remains pending in the trial court, and no party or inte rvenor filed a motion to

sever. 4 Accordingly, the judgment Loftin attempts to appeal is not a final

2 Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g. , Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 ( West Supp. 2014 ); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 301 (“Only one final judgment shall be rendered in any caus e except where it is otherwise specially provided by law.”).

3 Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 195.

4 See In re C.H. , No. 02

- 09

- 00060

- CV, 2009 W L 1564936, at * 1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth June 4, 2009, no. pet.) (mem. op.) (holding judgment not final when issue of terminat ion of father’s parental rights remained pending and3 judgment. Additionally, orders denying attorney’s fees or sanctions are not appealable interlocutory orders. 5 Because the judgment on Loftin’s seventh ame nded petition in intervention is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we grant the motions to dismiss, and we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 6

PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
DELIVERED: Au gust 28, 2014

mother had not sought severance) ; Thompson v. Beyer , 91 S.W.3d 902, 904 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2002, no pet.) (stating general rule that severance of an interlocutory judgment into a severed action makes it f inal if all claims in the severed action have been resolved).

5 See Allmond v. Loe, Warren, Rosenfield, Kaitcer, Hibbs & Windsor, P.C. , N o . 02

- 07

- 00282

- CV, 2008 WL 4601910, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Oct. 16, 2008, no. pet.) (mem. op.) ; Byrd v. Byrd, No. 0 2

- 07

- 00404

- CV, 2008 WL 204511, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Jan. 24, 2008, no pet. ) (mem. op.).

6 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).