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. 200 1) (“ 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 a n or de r to finally dispose of all claims and parties, it can abatethe appeal to permit clarification by the tria l 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 b e modified so as to be made final and may allow the modified order and all proceedings relating to it to be i ncluded in a supplemental record. Tex. R. App. P. 27.2. In this case, th is court requested that the parties brief the jurisdictional issue of the finality of the summary

- judgment order

. While the parties each argu ed in supplemental briefing that the trial cour t ’ s order is a final , appealable judgment because it actually dispose d of all claims and parties then before the trial court , it is not clear to this court that the order disposed o f all claims

. See Lehmann , 3 9 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 cl arity that i t 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 thir ty days so the parties may clarify whether the summary judgment is final by seeking a further ord er 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 ) sh al l be filed with the clerk of this court with in forty
- five days

. If a party cho o se s to contest j urisdiction, 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, whichev er occur s first

. Af ter examinin g the appellate record ,

1 N either part y argue s the order state s with unmistakable clarity that it is a final , appealable judgment as to all parties and all clai ms. See Leh mann , 39 S.W.3d at 192

– 93

.and on its own initiative after the time to file a supplemental c l erk ’ s record has

expired, the court may dismiss the appea l fo r want of jurisdiction. 2 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (a)

. If no supplemental cler k ’ s record i s fi led within t he time prescribed b y this order , the court , on i s own initiative, may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or noncompliance with a c ourt o rder

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b) , (c)

. While this order outlines vario us procedural paths this ap peal may take, t his
court express es n o opi n ion as to how the parties o r the trial court ought to proceed while the case is abated

. Responsibility for bringing cases to tr ial or final disposition rests with the trial court. See Tex. R . Jud. Admin. 6.1.
The appeal is abated, treated as a closed cas e, and removed from this c ourt ’ s active docket. The app eal will be reinstated o n this c ourt ’ s active docket without furth er order of the court when (1) t he s up pl emental clerk ’ s rec ord is filed in this
court , or (2) the deadline to file the supplemental clerk’s record has passed, whichever occurs first . The c ourt will also consider an appropr iate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the c o ur t ma y reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.

2 In the ev ent this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, this court, mindful of the time and expense involved in filing an appeal and bri efing it for submission , will consider a motion t o file the record and briefs in t his appeal in a new appeal and to set that appeal for
s ubmission if the parties agree that no additional briefing is re quired

.