DI SMISS; and Opinion Filed April 5 , 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01455
- CV JOSLYN CANNEUS , Appellant

V. HAMIDULLAH SIKANDER AND FAHIMA SIKANDER , Appellee s

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 18
- 05807
- E 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Molberg, and Reichek

Opinion by Justice Molberg We questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal from a partial summary judgment as it
appear ed claims remained pending in the trial court

. See Lehman v. Har

- Con Corp. , 3 9 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (subject to few mostly statutory exceptions, appeal may only be taken from final judgment that d isposes of all parties and claims). As reflected in the record, the challenged judgment disposed of appellees’ counter

- claim against appellant for forcible detainer but did not dispose of appellees’ request for attorney’s fees , appellant’s claims against appellees to quiet title , or appellant’s claims against a fourth party for wrongful forecl osure
. Two days after the trial court granted the challenged judgment , appellees filed an amended counterclaim omitting the request for attorney’s fees and a month later, the trial court severed appellant’s and appellees’ claim against each other from appellant’s claims against the fourth– 2

–

party

. Appellees then filed a motion to modify, correct, or reform the partial summary judgment, noting their amended countercla im did not seek attorney’s fees , but the record does not reflect the trial court modified the judgment

. Th e record also does not reflect the trial court has disposed of appellant’s claims against appellees

. At our request, the parties filed letter brief s addressing our jurisdiction. Appellant asserts that, because appellees withdrew their claims for attorney’s fees, the partial summary judgment
became final when the tria l court severed the claims between appellant and appellees from the
claims between a ppellant and the fourth party

. We disagree. When unadjudicated claims remain before the trial court, and a party moves to have the
claims nonsuited or removed by s everance, the claims are resolv ed for appellate purposes when the trial court signs a judgment or order disposing of those claims. See Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co. , 907 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) ( “ appellate timetable runs from the signing date of whatever order that makes a j udgment final and appealable, i.e. whatever order disposes of any parties or issues remaining before the court.”) (citing Martinez v. Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc. , 875 S.W.2d 311, 313 (Tex. 1994)). While t he filing of the amended petition amounted to a nons uit of the claim for attorney’s fees , only a trial court order could “finalize” th at claim. See id. And
while the severance order removed appellant’s claims against the fourth party, it did not resolve or

even address appellant’s claim s against appellees

. Accordingly, b ecause claims remain pending, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

181455F.P05 /Ken Molberg/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JOSLYN CANNEUS, Appellant
No. 05

- 18

- 01455

- CV V.
HAMIDULLAH SIKANDER AND FAHIMA SIKANDER, Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 18

- 05807

- E. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg, Justices Whitehill and Reichek participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER appellees Hamidullah Sikander and Fahima Sikander recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Joslyn Canneus.
Judgment entered this 5 th day of April 2019.