1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-14-00233-CV

____________________

JC PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., JOHN WARD, AND 

NANCY WARD, Appellants

V.

CEDAR POINT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., 

WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, VACATION HOME BUILDERS, 

INC., CHARLES VON SCHMIDT, PENINSULA INTERESTS GP, LLC,

PENINSULA INTERESTS, LP, AND CEDAR POINT HOLDINGS, 

Appellees

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 411th District Court 

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CIV26682 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellants, JC Project Management Services, Inc., John Ward, and Nancy 

Ward (Appellants), filed an appeal of a judgment dated March 7, 2014, granting a 

motion for a partial summary judgment. Appellee, Cedar Point Property Owners 

Association, Inc. (CPPOA), filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of 
2

jurisdiction, arguing that the March 7, 2014 judgment was not a final judgment 

because it did not dispose of all of the live claims before the trial court. In their 

response, the Appellants agree that CPPOA’s motion for partial summary 

judgment did not address all of the claims asserted in Appellants’ live pleading. 

Appellants state that they have appealed “out of an abundance of caution” because 

it is “unclear” whether the court’s judgment at issue could be construed to be final.

On appeal the parties agree that the trial court granted CPPOA’s plea to the 

jurisdiction in an order dated October 4, 2013. In that order, the trial court

purportedly dismissed all of Appellants’ claims against CPPOA, but the order says 

nothing about CPPOA’s pending counterclaim against Appellants. On or about 

November 27, 2013, Appellants filed their Fifth Amended Petition wherein they 

purport to add a “new derivative claim” concerning CPPOA. On December 19, 

2013, the trial court granted a motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed 

Appellants’ breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory judgment claims as to six of 

the other defendants. Then, on March 7, 2014, the trial court granted CPPOA’s 

motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the Appellants’ claims against 

CPPOA. None of the foregoing orders or judgments references CPPOA’s

counterclaim against Appellants wherein CPPOA requested affirmative relief and a

declaratory judgment confirming the validity of the amended deed restrictions.
3

Neither the Appellants nor CPPOA argue that the counterclaim was subsumed into 

any of the respective orders or judgments, and there is nothing in the record to 

indicate that CPPOA non-suited its request for affirmative relief. The orders and 

judgment also do not contain severance language.

“[W]hen there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or 

judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every 

pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally 

disposes of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 

205 (Tex. 2001). “An order that adjudicates only the plaintiff’s claims against the 

defendant does not adjudicate a counterclaim[.]” Id. The March 7, 2014 judgment 

lacks clear and unequivocal language of finality and it does not address 

counterclaims. See id. at 206. We conclude that the March 7, 2014 judgment is 

interlocutory. Therefore, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

 Justice

Submitted on July 9, 2014

Opinion Delivered July 10, 2014

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.