Opinion filed June 13, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-24-00100-CV

___________

ERIC DEWAYNE BURNS SR.; ERIC DEWAYNE BURNS JR.; 

AND VENNETTA BURNS, Appellants

V.

DEBRA LYNN LOWRY AND LIBERTY COUNTY MUTUAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees

On Appeal from the 350th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13224-D

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants, Eric Dewayne Burns Sr., Eric Dewayne Burns Jr., and Vennetta 

Burns, have filed a pro se notice of appeal, which purports to appeal the trial court’s 

order granting Appellee Liberty County Mutual Insurance Company’s Rule 91a 

motion to dismiss. The order granting Liberty County Mutual’s motion to dismiss

does not indicate that it filed its Rule 91a motion jointly with Appellee Debra Lynn 

Lowry, or that the trial court granted the motion jointly, with Appellee Debra Lynn 
2

Lowry or any other defendant in the proceedings below. The trial court’s order does

not dispose of all remaining parties and claims or include unequivocal finality 

language indicating that it is a final order, that the order is appealable, or that the 

order disposes of all claims and parties before the court. See Sealy Emergency Room, 

L.L.C. v. Free Standing Emergency Room Mgrs. of Am., L.L.C., 685 S.W.3d 816, 

820 (Tex. 2024) (citing Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 

2001)). 

In a letter dated April 22, 2024, the clerk of this court wrote the parties and 

informed them that it did not appear that Appellants were attempting to appeal from 

a final, appealable order. We requested that Appellants respond and show grounds 

to continue the appeal. We also informed Appellants that this appeal may be 

dismissed. Appellants did not respond to our request and show grounds to continue 

this appeal; instead, they opted to file a petition for writ of mandamus, alleging 

failures by the trial court and the court reporter in the trial court proceedings below.1

Appellate courts may review only final judgments or interlocutory orders 

specifically made appealable by statute. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. A trial 

court’s interlocutory order granting a Rule 91a motion to dismissis not an appealable

order. See Woodard v. Tu, No. 02-22-00483-CV, 2023 WL 2429796, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth Mar. 9, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (collecting cases). In this 

regard, a judgment rendered without a conventional trial on the merits is not final 

unless it “(1) dispose[s] of all remaining parties and claims then before the court, 

regardless of its language; or (2) include[s] unequivocal finality language that 

expressly disposes of all claims and parties.” Sealy Emergency Room, 685 S.W.3d 

at 820. The trial court’s order granting one Appellee’s Rule 91a motion to dismiss 

1

We have today denied the petition for writ of mandamus. See In re Eric Dewayne Burns Sr.; Eric 

Dewayne Burns Jr.; and Vennetta Burns, No. 11-24-00166-CV (Tex. App.—Eastland June 13, 2024, orig. 

proceeding). 
3

does neither. Because the trial court’s interlocutory order is not a final judgment and 

is not independently appealable, we are without jurisdiction to consider it. 

Therefore, we must dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

JOHN M. BAILEY

 CHIEF JUSTICE

June 13, 2024

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.