### NUM BER 13-05- 0053 2-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
SOUTHERN INSURA NCE COM PA NY A ND H. M . A DA M S, D /B/A

H . M . JR . A UT O SA LE S, A pp ellan ts,

v . POA L, INC ., D/B /A

SOU TH T EXAS A UT O A UC TION , A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nty C ou rt atL aw N o. 2 of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Vela M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez This su mmaryj u dg ment proceed ing ar is es from three par ti es cl aimi ng a r ig ht t o proce eds f rom a b o n d

. Appe llants, So uth ern Insu rance Comp any (South ern) and H.M. Ada ms d/ b /a H.M. Jr. Auto Sa les (H.M. Adam s), conte nd th at th e trial court erred in" T he p enal sum , whi ch i s t he f ace am ount of t he bond, i s t he m axi m um am ount t he su r et y can be 1 re q u i re d to p a y i n th e e v e n t o f a d e fa u l t b y th e p rin c i p a l ." Pavecon, I nc. v. R
- C om , I nc. , 159 S. W

. 3d 2 19, 221 ( T ex. App. –For t W or t h 20 05, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng G re a t A m . I n s . C o . v . N

. A u s tin M u n
. U ti l

. D is t. N o . 1 , 908 S. W

. 2d 41 5, 42 6-2 7 (T ex
. 19 95 ))

. 2 g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment i n fav or

of appel lee , PO AL, Inc ., d/b/a S o u th T e x as Auto Auct ion ( STAA) , and i n aw ardin g att or ney 's fees t o STAA. So uther n al so cont ends that the tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing i ts count er-mot ion for s u m mary j udg ment. W e rev erse and
re mand. I. Bac kg ro und Southe r n , a s u r e t y , i s s u e d a m o t o r v e h i c l e d e a l e r

b o n d i n t h e a mo u n to f $ 25,000
o n b e h a l f o f i t s p r i n c i p a l , D a r l i n e J a mi s o n d / b / a K a rz R U s ( J a mis on)

. See T EX
. T RA NS
. C OD E A NN
. § 503. 033 ( Ver non 200 7)

. STAA, H. M. Adams , and San Antoni o Aut o Auc ti on obt aine d def ault judgmen ts against Jamison and each subm itted a w ritten claim against the bon d to So uth ern; H.M. Ada ms asse rted a cl a im f o r $16,3 90 p lus atto rney's fees, STAA a cl aim for $26, 825 pl us attor ney 's fees, and San Antonio Auto Auct ion a c lai m for $15,431 .35 p lus att or ney 's fees—t he c umula t i v e t o t a l o f w h i c h e x c eeded t he $25, 000 pen al sum of the bond. So uther n adv is ed the cl aimant s that it w oul d i nter ple ad th e funds i nto 1 the c our t if they coul d not ag re e on the dis tr ibu ti on of t he $25,000 w it hin thi rty day s o f the noti ficat ion

. Before the t hir ty day s e lap sed, STAA fil ed s uitag ain st Southe rn
. A. C l ai ms a nd C ou nt erc l ai ms In i ts law sui t ag ain st Southe rn , STAA ass erted a br each of c ontractcl aim all eg ing Sou the rn f ailed to pay the judgme nt un der the bon d an d proximate ly cause d ST AA's damag es. STAA soug ht attor ney 's fees "as all ow ed by the cont ra cts in br each and Cha pter 38, Tex as Ci v il Pract ic e & Remedi es Cod e." Southe rn fil ed a g eneral deni al. I t3

als o fil ed an int er ple ader ac ti on br ing ing H .M

. Adams and Sa n Ant oni o Aut o Auc ti on i nto the l aw sui t bec ause Southe rn co u ld n o t d eter mine it s l iab il it y as betw een t he th re e cl aimant s a nd te ndered th e di sput ed $25, 000 into the reg is tr y of the cour t. Clai ming to be a di si nterest ed s tak ehol der , S o u thern s oug ht t o recov er i ts cos ts and at tor ney 's fees ag ain st STAA. Southe rn al so soug ht t o enj oin al l cl aim a n ts from i nst it uti ng furth er su it s ag ain st itand from maki ng any effort t o c oll ectfrom So uther n an y ju d gm ents rendered ag ain st Jami son. H.M. Adam s and S an An ton io Auto Auction f iled cou nte rclaims against So uth ern each ass erti ng pr ior it y

of it s respec ti v e j udg ment ag ain st the b ond proceed s a nd c lai ming that, as a resul t of Sout her n's fail ur e to honor i ts o b liga ti on pursuantto the b ond, ithad been i nju re d. Each so ug ht recov er y of proceed s from the $25,000 bond is sued by Sou the rn. H.M. Ada ms and San Ant onio Aut o Auct ion also g ene rally den ied So uth ern's
re q uestfor a ttor ney 's fees, cl aimi ng Sout her n had n o t f ulfil led i ts duty under the bond. Sou the rn f iled a genera l denia l an d also requeste d att orne y 's fe es be aw arde d against H. M. Adams and San A ntoni o Aut o Auc ti on. B. Summary

Ju dg ment M oti ons 1. STAA's M oti on for Summary Ju dg ment STAA filed a t ra dit ion al moti on for summar y j udg ment c lai ming pr ior it y of jud g ment
as ag ain st H. M. Adams and re q uest ing thatthe proceed s o f the bond be rele ased to S TAA. STAA at tac hed t he affidav itof Lar ry Bl ackw ell , STAA' s e mploy ee, a s e v ide nce. The aff ida v itse t outf act s reg ardin g STAA' s j udg ment ag ain st Jami son and t he bond i ss ued by Southe rn
. After ack now led g ing Sout her n had uncond it ion all y tend er ed th e di sput ed $25,000 i nto t he reg is tr y of the c our

t, Bl ackw ell st ate d S T AA wa s "s eeki ng to be th e4

re ci pie nt of the Bond. " The bo nd w as attac hed t o Bl ackw ell 's aff ida v itas an ex hib it

. STAA did not r eq uestjudg ment aga ins t Souther n. It did not a ll eg e g ro unds or offer auth or it y

for judgme nt againstSout hern on its breach of contractcla im

. I t d id notof fer evi den ce suppo rt ing i ts br each of contractcl aim ass erted a g ain st Southe rn
. And, alt houg h STAA suppl emented it s mot ion w it h the aff ida v itof couns el, C har li e J. Cil f o ne, s etti ng out professi onal se rv ic es re ndered i n thi s c ase and t he amount charg ed, STAA nei ther urg ed nor requeste d an aw ard of atto rney's fees. Southe rn respon ded t hat STAA had not e sta bli shed as a matt er of law thati t had pr ior it y to the $ 25,000 ov er

the other

clai mants. H. M. Adams also re spond ed th at S TAA did no t me et its burd en, the law did not supp ort its argume nt, and ST AA's plea dings w ere defecti v e i n that there w er e dis crepanc ies i n the date s p lea ded. H .M . Ad ams present ed aut hority and evidence in suppo rt of its pos it ion th at H.M. Ada ms's jud gmen t against Jam ison ha d priorityov er ST AA's judgm ent

. H.M. Ad am s also argued th at th e trial court shou ld den y

ST AA's m otion beca use the o nly j udg ment c apabl e of bei ng rendered o n [S TAA's moti on] w il l not dis pose of all par

ti es and/or

cl aims

. Spec ific all y , [ STAA] h as not a ddr ess ed the i ss ue of i ts ow n att or ney 's fees i n i ts moti on. Mo re ov er , [STAA's ] M oti on for Summar

y Judg ment doe s n ot c ontempl ate a nd/or di sprov e any

el ement o f H. M. A d a m s ' co u n t e rc la im a ga in s t[ S o u t h e rn ] a s a m a t t e r o f la w. 2. H. M. Adams 's Amended Mo ti on for Summary Ju dg ment H.M. Adam s also f iled an ame nde d mo tion fo r sum ma ry judgme nt claim ing that it had s how n i tse lf to hav e a s uper ior r ig ht to the procee ds of the bond becaus e its j udg ment
a gai n st Ja mis on al leg edl y bec ame final before STAA's j udg ment. Ital so arg ued t hat alt houg h STAA shoul d notbe a w arded at torne y's f e es, H .M . Ad ams w as enti tl ed to
re asona ble and neces sar y att or ney 's fees i n defense of this i nter ple ader act ion and in it sO n ap pe al , So ut he r n do es n ot c ha l l en ge t he t r i al cou r t ' s de ni al , i fany , ofi nj un ct i v e r el i ef , a nd s o we 2 d o n o t c o n s i d e r i t h e re
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7 .1 ; M a rtin e z v . E l P a s o C o u n ty , 218 S. W

. 3d 8 41 , 8 44 ( T ex. A p p .– E l P a s o 2 0 0 7 , p e t. d i s m 'd ) ( " W h e n r e v ie w in g a c i v i l m a tte r, a n a p p e l l a te c o u rt h a s n o d i s c re ti o n to c on s i de r an i s s ue no t rai s ed i n t he ap pe l l an t ' s bri ef. " ). 5 pursui t t o recov er

the proceed s of the b ond. F ina ll y , H .M . Ad ams urg ed th at be caus e of Southe rn 's al leg ed fail ur e and/ or re f u sal to fulfill i ts duty under the bond, attor ney 's fees shou ld notbe awarded to Sout hern . In respon se, So ut h e rn challen ged H.M. Adam s's
re q uestfor a ttor ney 's fees i ncur re d i n thi s i nter ple ader act ion as w it hout author it y . STAA filed no respon se to H .M . Ad ams' s mot ion for s ummary j udg ment. 3. Southe rn 's C ounter-M oti on for Summary Ju dg ment Southe rn filed a tradi ti onal count er-mot ion for summar y j udg ment. Al leg ing i t had sat is fied i ts obl ig ati on unde r the bond by est abl is hin g the three el ements of it s i nter ple ader act ion as a mat ter

of law , So uther n s oug ht dis charg e f ro m further liab il it y and an i nju nct ion on f utu re action s on the bon d at issue

. As a disintereste d stake hold er, Sou the rn also 2
arg ued i ts enti tl ement to attor ney 's f ees and prov ide d the af fidav itof Lai rd E. Law re nce to esta blish att orne y 's fees and ex pen ses tota ling $5, 671 .48 ; fees a nd e x pen ses tha t w ere incurred in con nect ion w ith the interplea der. STAA's respon se did n o t c hal len g e Sout her n's pos it ion thati t had sa ti sfied the ele ments of its i nter ple ader ac ti ons. STAA onl y

respon ded t o S o u thern' s req uestfor att o r n e y ' s fe e s
. I t o bj e c t e d t o L a w r e n c e ' s a ffi d a v i t o n t h e g ro u n d t h a t t h e r e q uestfor attor ney 's fees w as not reason abl e or nec ess ar

y bec ause "[a]fter

Sout her n i nte rp led dis puted funds i n to t h e r eg is tr y of the C our

t, [i ts] i nv olv ement i n thi s c ase w as no l ong er
neces sar

y ." Cor re spond ence from STAA's counsel to Southe rn 's co unsel , dat ed Novembe r 24, 20 04, and a ttach ed as an exhibit t o ST AA's respo nse, provi ded as follows:6

"Ple ase n ote , I am specif ically o bjectin g to an y

atto rney's fees a ccruing w hich m ay dim inish the amo untof

the judgme nt owed m y clien t. T hatis, if

y ou a ccrue att orne y 's fe es, I expect tho se fees to come f rom so urces oth er than the am oun t available to sat isf y my [clie n t 's] jud g ment." 4. San A ntoni o Aut o Auc ti on San A ntoni o Aut o Auc ti on di d notf il e a moti on for summary

judg ment and is no t a party to this app eal. C. The J udg ment Con cl udi ng ST AA had establ is hed l iab il it y ag ain st Southe rn , H .M . Ad ams, and Sa n Anton io A u to Aucti on, t he tr ial co urt g ra nted STAA's moti on, a w arded c our t c ost s a nd attor ney 's f ees ag ain st South er n, and denied S outher n's req uestfor a ttor ney 's fees. After rend ering judgmen t for S T AA and , af ter ackno w ledging th at all partie s app eare d by their
couns el of rec ord, t he j udg ment s et ou t t he foll ow ing : "After cons ide ri ng [STAA' s] Mo ti on f o r Summ aryJudgme nt an d argume nts of coun sel, this Court is of the op inion th at all is sues of

f a ct a n d of

l aw i n di sput e as betw een t he par ti es of this l aw sui t hav e been dis posed of by

su mmary

j udg ment." T he j udg ment al so prov ide d tha t STAA "had est abl is hed l iab il it y

ag ain st the D efendant and Inter ple aders." It found that Southe rn had failed to pay bank drafts drawn by Jamiso n for the p urcha se of mot or v ehicles f rom ST AA's pla ce of busi ness , t hat J amis on had br eache d her co ntractfor p ur chas e as i t rela tes to thos e motor

v ehi cl es, and that STAA s houl d recov er damage s f ro m S outher n i n the amount o f $31,825, inc lud ing a ctual damag es of $25,825 and at tor ney 's fees of $5,0 00. T he jud gmen t also awarded cost s of suit against Sou the rn
. I n add ition, So uth ern's
re cov er y of attor ney 's fees req uest ed in its co unter-mot ion for s ummary j udg ment bas ed7

on i ts all eg ed s tatus as a di si nterest ed sta kehol der i n the i nter ple ader

ac ti on w as deni ed. Fi nal ly , t he j udg ment prov ide d tha t "[ a]l l re li ef not g iv en i s d eni ed." II. St andard of Re v iew The st andard of r ev iew for a tradi ti onal su mmary jud g ment is w ell es tabl is hed: the
mov ant mus t s how

there i s n o g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact a nd t h a t it is enti tl ed to jud g ment as a mat ter

of law

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66a( c) ; Sw. Elec. Power C o. v . G ra nt , 73 S. W .3d 2 11, 2 15 ( Tex . 200 2) ; Ni xon v. Mr . Pr op. M gm t. Co. , 6 9 0 S

. W

. 2 d 5 4 6 , 5 4 8 (T e x. 1985) ; Mercier v. South we stern Be ll Yellow Pa ges, Inc. , 2 1 4 S

. W

. 3 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 3 (T e x. App .–Corp us Christi 2007 , no pe t.). A party mo v ing for tradition al sum ma ry judgmen t mu st conclu siv e ly n egate a t least on e esse ntial ele me nt of each of the no n-mo v ing party 's
caus e s o f a c t i o n o r c o n c l u s i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e a c h e l e me n t o f a n a ffi r ma t i v e d e fe n se. Sci. Spec tr um , Inc. v. M

ar ti nez , 941 S .W .2d 9 10, 9 11 (Te x . 199 7). Th e prop rietyof summ ary jud g ment is a q uest ion of l aw , and w e thus re v iew the tr ial cour t' s r uli ng de n ov o. Pr

ovi dent Lif e & Accide nt Ins. C o. v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 2 11, 2 15 ( Tex . 200 3) ; Or tega v. Nat 'l

Bank , 97 S. W .3d 765 , 771 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 3, no pet. ) ( op. on reh'g). W hen bot h s ide s mov e for summar y j udg ment and the tr ial co urt grants one motio n and d e n i e s t h e o t h e r , w e w i l l r e v i e w b o t h s i d e s ’ s u mm a r y j u d g me n t e v i d e n c e and deter mine all q uest ion s p re sent ed. C re dit watch, Inc . v . Jack son , 157 S.W .3d 8 14, 8 16 n. 7 (T e x. 20 0 5 ) (ci ti n g Schn eider Nat' l Car ri er s, Inc . v . Ba tes , 1 4 7 S

. W

. 3 d 2 6 4 , 2 9 0 n
. 1 3 7 (T e x. 2004) ); F

M Pr op s
. Op er

. C o. v . C ity of Austin , 2 2 S. W .3d 8 68, 8 72 ( Tex . 200 0)

. The
re v iew ing co urt s houl d render the jud g ment that the tr ial cour t s houl d hav e rendered. See FM Pr ops ., 22 S. W .3d a t 872

. How ev er , befor e w e may rev erse summar

y j u d gm e n t forH a v in g b r o u g h t f iv e i s s u e s o n a p p e a l, S o u th e r n w ith d r e w its f irs t is s u e c o m p la in in g o fth e tria l c o u r t's 3 f in d in g th a t S o u th e r n f a ile d to p a y b a n k d r a f ts . F o r c o n v e n ie n c e , w e h a v e r e n u m b e r e d t h e i s s u e s a n d w ill addr ess t hem as r enum ber ed. 8 one p a rt y a nd render

j udg ment for the o ther par ty , bot h par

ti es must hav e s oug ht fina l jud g ment reli ef in t hei r cross -mot ion s for su mma ryj udg ment. CU Lloyd’ s of Tex. v. Feldm an , 977 S.W .2d 5 68, 5 69 ( Tex . 199 8) ( per cu ri am). I f the moti ons ar e no t f ina l jud g ment s umm a ry judg ment moti ons, w e c annot re nder j udg ment on them. See id. ; Montg om e ry

v. B lue Cross & Blue Sh ield of Tex. , Inc. , 9 2 3 S

. W

. 2 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 2 (T e x. App .–A ustin 1 996 , w rit denied ) ( en b anc). III

. Scop e of Re v iew T h e sc ope of

r evi ew i n an appeal f r om su m m ar y j udgm ent i s a l so l i m i t ed. Cap itol Indem . C or

p. v . Kirby R est. Eq uip . & Che m . Su ppl y C o. , 170 S.W .3d 1 44, 1 46 (Te x . App .–S an An ton io 2 0 0 5 , pet . den ied). A mo tion for sum ma ry judgmen t mu st expressly

presen t the g roun ds up on whi c h i t is made , and it must sta nd o r fa ll on these g ro unds alo ne. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P.166a (c ) ( re q uir ing the mov ant' s motion to ex pli ci tl y st ate the s peci fic g ro unds for th e s ummary j udg ment) ; Sci. Sp ect

ru m , 941 S.W .2d a t 912 ( ci ti ng Mc Con nel

l v. Souths ide Indep. S ch. D is t. , 858 S.W .2d 337 , 341 (Tex. 1993 )). IV. Ana ly sis A. STAA's Grounds for S ummary Ju dg ment By i ts firs t i ss ue, Souther n contends that the tri al cour t erred i n ent er ing j udg ment 3 ag ain st Southe rn for $ 31,825 plu s i nterestand cos ts becau se the o nly reli ef req uest ed by STAA i n i t s mo t i o n fo r s u mm a r y j u d g me n t w a s t h e r e l e a s e o f t h e i n t e r p l e d pr oceed s o f9

Sou th e rn 's bond. By

i ss ue two, S outher n c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n aw ardin g attor ney 's fees t o STAA becau se STAA di d notas k for fees i n i ts moti on. W e ag re e. In it s moti on for summar y jud g ment, STAA soug ht the re lea se of t he $ 2 5 ,000 d e p o s it e d b y S o u t h e rn in t o t h e re gi s t ry of t h e co u rt

. ST AAcl a im e d t h a titsh o u ld re c e ive the f und s beca use o f

its alleged priority

of judgmen t a ga in s t Jamiso n. T he e v iden ce of fered byST AA prese nte d facts relate d to its argume nt th at i t h a d priority ov er H.M. Adams to i nter ple d funds. STAA' s e v ide nce est abl is hed t hat S outher n depos it ed the b ond procee2 ds int o the reg is tr y of the c our

t and thatSTAA w as "seek ing to be th e reci pie nt of the B ond." T he judgme nt, howev er, det ermin ed liab ility against H.M. Adam s and San An ton io Auto Auct ion , and contract ual liab il it y agai nstSout her n. The ju dg ment al so aw arded fees against So uth ern. T his w as no t the relief requested byST AA in it s mot ion for sum ma ry jud g ment. ST AA is not e ntitled to a sum ma ry judgmen t on a ground n ot spe cif ically state d in its m o ti o n. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P .16 6 a (c) ; Sci. Sp ect ru m , 9 4 1 S

. W

. 2 d a t 9 1 2

. ST AA did notpresen t Sou the rn's breach of contractliability

or its en titlem entto atto rney's fees a s a g ro und i n i ts moti on for summar y jud g ment. Thus, w e conc lud e tha t t he tr ial co urt er re d in grant ing STAA 's summ aryjudgmen t against So uth ern an d granting STAA atto rney's fees. W e susta in Sou the rn's f irst and seco nd issue s. B. Southe rn 's C ounter-M oti on for Summary Ju dg ment on Inter ple ader Ac ti on By its third issue, Sou the rn co nte nds tha t the t rial cou rt e rred in den y ing i ts coun termoti on for summar

y j udg ment becaus e Sout her n es tabl is hed t hat i t s houl d be dis charg ed from the int er ple ader

ac ti on as a mat ter

of law

. By it s fourth is sue, Sout her n c ontends that10

the c our t als o erred i n deny ing i ts moti on for attor ney 's fees bec ause ites tabl is hed i ts ri g ht to at tor ney 's fees as a di si nterest ed s tak ehol der and the re asona ble ness of t he amount o f t h e fe e s a s a m a t t e r o f la w. T exas Rule of

Civ il Procedu re 4 3 a uth oriz es a stake hold er w ho rece iv es mu ltiple cl aims to proper

ty i n i ts poss ess ion to joi n al l cl aimant s i n a l a wsui t and depos itthe dis puted proper

ty i nto t he reg is tr

y of the c our

t. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 4 3 ; se e O lmos v. Pec an Grove Mun . Util. Di

st ., 85 7 S.W .2d 734 , 741 (T ex. Ap p.– Housto n [14 th Dist.] 199 3, no w rit); Br yant v. U nited Sho rt

li ne In c ., 984 S. W .2d 2 92, 2 96 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth) , aff'd , 972 S.W .2d 2 6 ( Tex . 199 8)

. In an i nter ple ader ac ti on, t he in te rp le a d ing par ty i s e nti tl ed to int er ple ader

reli ef if: ( 1) i t i s e it her

su bje ct to or

has reaso nabl e grounds to anti ci pate ri v al cl aims to the sa m e f u n d or proper ty ; ( 2) i t has not unr eason abl y del ay ed i n fil ing i ts int er ple ader

ac ti on; a nd, ( 3) i t has unc o n d it io n a lly tend er ed th e fund or

proper ty i nto t he
re g is tr y of t he c our

t. Han zel v. Her

ri ng , 80 S.W .3d 1 67, 1 73 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 02,
n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Br

yant , 984 S.W .2d at 296 ). Southe rn 's su mmary

judg ment ev ide nce est abl is hed that Souther n rece iv ed th re e claims againstthe b o n d issu ed o n be half of Jamiso n, th e cum ulative tota l of w hich
ex ceede d $25, 000. The summary judg ment ev ide nce als o s how ed th at S outher n adv is ed the cl aimant s that itw oul d i nter ple ad th e funds i nto t he c our t i f they co uld not ag re e on the d is t ri b u t io n o f

t h e $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 wit h in t h irt y d a ys o f t h e n o t if ic a t io n
. Be fo re t h e t h irt y d a ys elap sed, ST AA initiat ed th is law suit. Af ter bein g serv ed, Sout hern an sw ered the lawsuit and fil ed th e i nter ple ader ac ti on. It is al so uncon tes ted t h a t th e $ 2 5 ,000 w as tendered,
uncon dit ion all y , i nto t he reg is tr y of the c our

t.11

From our rev iew of the e v ide nce in thi s summar y judg ment proceed ing , w e c oncl ude tha t So u th e rn has sh ow n the re i s n o g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact reg ardin g the three ele ments of the inter ple ader acti on. W e susta in the thi rd iss ue. How ev er , for reason s s et out b elo w

reg ardin g the final it y

of jud g ment, w e c annot re nder j udg ment di sc harg ing Southe rn
. See Le hm ann v . Har -C on C or p. , 39 S.W .3d 191 , 205 -06 (Te x . 200 1); F eld m an , 9 7 7 S .W .2 d at 569; Montg om ery , 92 3 S. W .2 d at1 52

. W e al s o de c l i ne t o ad dress Sou the rn's fourth issue beca use th e award of atto rney's fees in the interp lead er action is dep end ento n the resolution of othe r claims thatrema in and is not dispo sitiv e of this appeal

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.1. V. Fi nal it y of Judg ment In t his ca se, i t app ears b y the lan g uag e of the judg ment that the tr ial co urt i ntended the jud g ment to be final w hen it set out "that all is sues of fact and of l aw in di sp u te as betw een t he par

ti es of this l aw sui t hav e been dis p o sed of bysu mmary j udg ment," that ST AA "h ad e stab lished liab ility against the Defend antand Inte rplead ers," a nd th at "[ a]ll
re li ef no t g iv en is deni ed." There is no pr esumpt ion of fina li ty for sum m a ry judg ment
orders, how ev er , and al thoug h the j udg ment i n thi s c ase cont ain s u neq uiv ocal st atements of f ina li ty , t he moti ons did not ask for j udg ments on al l cla im s a n d f o r al l par ti es. See Lehm ann , 39 S.W .3d a t 205 -0 6. Among other thing s, the p ri or it y of the t hr ee j udg ments ag ain st Jami son w as not
re sol v ed. As betw een STAA, H .M . Ad ams, and Sa n Antoni o Auto Auct ion , t he resol uti on of the priority iss u e will dete rmine the ord er in w hich th e judgme nts are to be pa id. Th is i s i mport ant b ecaus e the three j udg ments combi ned ex ceed the b ond' s $ 25,000 penal l imi t. Southe rn , STAA, and H. M. Adams arg ued pr ior it y i n the ir su mmary jud g ment moti ons. The12

jud g ment di d notaddres s STAA's pri or it y . Nei ther did the underl y ing judg ment di spos e of H.M. Adam s's priority

cla im s wh en it granted ST AA's m otion and den ied So uth ern's request for atto rney's fees, ev en b y implicatio n as urged by H .M. Ada ms. Al so, nec ess ar

y to conc lud ing the int er ple ader acti o n i s a deter minat ion of Sou the rn's statu s as an inn ocen t stake hold er, w hich w ill af fect th e award of

atto rney's fees. "T h e T e xa s rule is tha t t h e i n n o ce n t stak e h o lde r in an i n terple a d e r is en ti tl e d to
a ttorne y' s fee s, to b e p a id o u t of the i m p lea d e d fun d ." U. S. v . R ay Thom as Gr

avel C o. , 380 S.W .2d 576 , 581 (Tex. 1964 ). Sou the rn cla ims tha t it is undispu ted thatSout hern is a disinte rested stakeh olde r. STAA , h o we v er, asserte d brea ch of contractagainst Southe rn , and H .M . Ad ams an d San Antoni o Auto Auct ion , i n the ir co unter-c lai ms, all eg ed that Southe rn fail ed or refused to per mit the p artie s to r e co ver under the bond. The cont ract action s are still pendin g and their resolutio n w ill imp act So uth ern ' s s t a t u s a s a dis int er est ed s tak ehol der and the aw ard of

att or ney 's fees. See , e.g ., Union Gas Corp. v. Gi sler , 129 S.W .3d 145, 153 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p et.) ( conc lud ing thata sta kehol der

co uld not re cov er

attor ney 's f ees becau se itw as re spons ibl e for the c onfli cti ng cl aims to the funds and crea ted i ts ow n predi cament ). An d, t o the extent the c lai ms for br each of contract m ay be d eter mined to be i ndependen t of the int er ple ader ac ti on, t he is s u e o f a t t o rn e y' s fe e s re m a in s
. F in a ll y, t h e ju d gm e n t d id n o t d is p o s e o f , o r eve n id e n t ify, S a n A n t o n io A u t o A u c t io n a s a p a rt y. B a s e d o n t h e a b o v e , a l t h o u g h t h e t ri a l c o u rti n t e n d e d t h e ju d gm e n tt o b e f in a l, we
conc lud e tha t al l cl aims and par ti es hav e notbeen dis posed of by the tr ial co urt. The
re cord fail s t o show adeq uate moti ons or other l eg al basi s for

the tr ial co urt' s d is posi ti on
re g ardin g al l cl aims and all par ti es. See Le hm ann , 39 S.W .3d a t 206 ; First Nat'l Ban k v.13

De Vi ll agom ez , 54 S. W .3d 345 , 348 (Tex. App. –Corp u s C h risti 20 01, pet. den ied). T h e r e f o r e , w e w il l cons ide r the j udg ment as final —er ro neous , butfinal and appeal abl e. See Le hm ann , 39 S.W .3d a t 200

. Al so, bec ause the p arti es did not seek final j udg ment
r el i ef b y t he i r mo ti on s a s t o al l c l ai ms an d al l pa rti es , w e c an no t r en de r j ud g me nto n th em
. See F eld m an , 977 S.W .2d a t 569 ; Montg om ery , 923 S.W .2d a t 152

. VI. C oncl usi on Acc ordin g ly , w e rev erse the t ri al cour t' s o rd er g ra nti ng STAA' s summar y j udg ment and i ts order

deny ing Souther n attor ney 's f ees and remand thi s matter to the tr ial courtfor proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

. NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 2nd day

of Ma y , 200 8.