Order filed April 28, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00473-CV

____________

AVALON ADVISORS, LLC, Appellant

V.

CHARLES JUSTIN LUKE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-84191

ABATEMENT ORDER

This is an appeal from a summary-judgment order signed June 24, 2020 that 

purports to be a final judgment. There is no summary-judgment finality language 

in the order. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001)

(“This judgment finally disposes of all parties and all claims and is appealable.”).

The Texas Supreme Court has advised that if an appellate court is uncertain 

about the intent of an order to finally dispose of all claims and parties, it can abate 
the appeal to permit clarification by the trial court. See id. Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 27.2 provides as follows:

The appellate court may allow an appealed order that is not final to be 

modified so as to be made final and may allow the modified order and 

all proceedings relating to it to be included in a supplemental record.

Tex. R. App. P. 27.2. 

In this case, this court requested that the parties brief the jurisdictional issue

of the finality of the summary-judgment order. While the parties each argued in 

supplemental briefing that the trial court’s order is a final, appealable judgment 

because it actually disposed of all claims and parties then before the trial court, it is 

not clear to this court that the order disposed of all claims. See Lehmann, 39 

S.W.3d at 192–93 (judgment issued without conventional trial is final for purposes 

of appeal if and only if either it (1) actually disposes of all claims and parties then 

before the court, regardless of its language, or (2) it states with unmistakable 

clarity that it is final judgment as to all claims and all parties).

1

Accordingly, we order the case abated and remanded to the trial court for a 

period of thirty days so the parties may clarify whether the summary judgment is 

final by seeking a further order or orders of the trial court, including, but not 

limited to, the finality language in Lehmann. A supplemental clerk’s record 

containing any such order(s) shall be filed with the clerk of this court within 

forty-five days. If a party chooses to contest jurisdiction, the court requests any 

motion for dismissal be filed with the clerk of this court within ten days after (1) a 

supplemental clerk’s record is filed, or (2) the deadline to file the supplemental 

clerk’s record, if any, whichever occurs first. After examining the appellate record,

1 Neither party argues the order states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final, 

appealable judgment as to all parties and all claims. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 192–93. 
and on its own initiative after the time to file a supplemental clerk’s record has 

expired, the court may dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.2 See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3(a). If no supplemental clerk’s record is filed within the time 

prescribed by this order, the court, on is own initiative, may dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution or noncompliance with a court order. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b), (c). 

While this order outlines various procedural paths this appeal may take, this 

court expresses no opinion as to how the parties or the trial court ought to proceed 

while the case is abated. Responsibility for bringing cases to trial or final 

disposition rests with the trial court. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.1.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket without 

further order of the court when (1) the supplemental clerk’s record is filed in this 

court, or (2) the deadline to file the supplemental clerk’s record has passed, 

whichever occurs first. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to 

reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its 

own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.

2

In the event this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, this court, mindful of the 

time and expense involved in filing an appeal and briefing it for submission, will consider a 

motion to file the record and briefs in this appeal in a new appeal and to set that appeal for 

submission if the parties agree that no additional briefing is required.