Court Opinion

ID: 9958380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 09:09:49.78312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:16.504488
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                       NO. 03-23-00452-CV

                                   Donald Quinonez, Appellant

                                                  v.

                                     Seaton Collard, Appellee

               FROM THE 335TH DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY
     NO. 2181-335, THE HONORABLE REVA TOWSLEE-CORBETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

                             M E M O RAN D U M O PI N I O N

               On July 25, 2023, the trial court issued an order granting appellee’s motion for

summary judgment on his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. In the same order, the trial

court ordered appellee to submit his application for attorney’s fees to the court within fourteen

days. Appellant appealed the order to this Court. In response, appellee filed a motion to dismiss

this cause, alleging that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this appeal because the

order is not a final judgment that disposes of all claims and parties. We agree.

               “[A]n order or 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

disposes of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex.

2001). An order that does not dispose of all issues and parties is interlocutory and not appealable

absent a severance. Mafrige v. Ross, 866 S.W.2d 590, 591 (Tex. 1993), overruled on other grounds,
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001). Here, appellee’s claim for recovery of

attorney’s fees is a separate claim that remains pending before the trial court, and thus the order is

not a final, appealable judgment. See Youngblood & Assocs., P.L.L.C. v. Duhon, 57 S.W.3d 63, 65

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (holding that order was not final, appealable

judgment where order contained no ruling on party’s claim for recovery of attorney’s fees).

Accordingly, because the order appealed from is not a final, appealable judgment and there is no

severance in the record, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions are

dismissed as moot.

                                               __________________________________________
                                               Edward Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: April 3, 2024

                                                  2