# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

February 13, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00798

- CV

Stephen W. MABERY and Damon Thorpe

,

Appellant s

v.

MORANI RIVER RANCH HOLDINGS LP , Morani GP LLC, Morani River Ranch LLC,

Kevin L. Reid and Stewards of Wildlife Conservation Inc.,

Appellee s

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI03565 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellants seek to appeal a summary judgment order signed on October 16, 2019

. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the trial court’s order is not a final judgment because it does not dispose of all the claims and parties that were
before the court. Appellees assert that their claim for attorney’s fees remains pending. Appellants filed a response , arguing the summary judgment order actually disposed of all claims and parties.

When there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order granting summary judgment is not final for purposes of appeal “unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally d isposes of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). Here, the trial court’s order does not unequivocally state that it finally disposes of all claims and parties, nor does it actually dispose of any claim or party. See id . The trial court’s order does not include any decretal language that is typically seen in a judgment, such as the phrase “ordered, adjudged, and

decreed ; ” the order does not state how the granting of Appellees’ motion for summary judgment

l egally effects the parties’ respective claims ; and the order does not expressly dispose of the Appellees’ request for attorney ’ s fees. See, e.g.

, In re Wilmington Tr., Nat’l Ass’n , 524 S.W.3d 790, 791 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding ) (holding an order was not a final judgment when the order failed to include any decretal language); see also In re Educap,

Inc. , No. 01

– 12

– 00546

– CV., 2012 WL 3224110, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, nopet.) (determining a trial court did not render a final judgment when the judgment failed to

address a claim for attorney’s fee, which was expressly asserted in the party’s answer and motion for summary judgment). Instead, the trial court’s order merely states that it “grants Defendants[’]

. . . Motion for Summary Judgment.” “An order that merely grants a motion for judgment is in no sense a judgment itself. It adjudicates nothing.” Naaman v. Grider , 126 S.W.3d 73, 74 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we sua sponte ABATE this appeal an d ORDER the trial court to clarify whether it intended to render a final judgment on Appellants’ claims against Appellees and, if so, to sign a judgment that is final for purposes of appeal. See Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 206 (“If the appellate court is uncert ain about the intent of the order, it can abate the appeal to permit clarification by the trial court.”); Hodo v. State , 419 S.W.3d 382, 385 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2010, order) (“If an appellate court is uncertain about the intent of an order to finally dispose of all claims, it can abate the appeal to permit clarification by the trial court.”).

We further ORDER the trial court to cause a supplemental clerk’s record containing any pleadings, orders, or judgment relating to this order to be filed in this court within 45 days of the
date of this order

. All other appellate deadlines are suspend ed pending further order of this

court.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13th day of February, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court