Court Opinion

ID: 8431282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-04 07:10:03.212008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:48:38.286188
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-22-00216-CV
                              __________________

                       JACK CARPENTER, Appellant

                                        V.

  INA CLAIRE WATSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE
    FRANK AND INA WATSON FAMILY LIVING TRUST, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the 258th District Court
                     San Jacinto County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. CV14,744
__________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Jack Carpenter and Appellee Ina Claire Watson, Individually and

as Trustee of the Frank and Ina Watson Family Living Trust, filed a Joint Motion to

Dismiss Without Prejudice. The parties have agreed that the trial court’s order

granting Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment is an interlocutory order.

      On February 22, 2022, the trial court signed an order that granted Watson’s

motion for a no-evidence summary judgment and dismissed Carpenter’s affirmative

                                        1
defenses of “limitations, collateral estoppel, waiver, and laches[.]” On June 8, 2022,

the trial court signed an order that dismissed Carpenter’s claims that he “acquired

superior title to the property in dispute . . . by limitation by adversely possessing the

property in dispute[.]” The trial court’s orders lack language that clearly and

unequivocally demonstrates that the trial court intended the order to completely

dispose of the entire case. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex.

2001).

      Through their joint motion, Carpenter and Watson agree that the appeal

should be dismissed because the trial court has not signed a final judgment that

disposes of every pending claim and party before the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.1(a)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R.

App. P. 43.2(f).

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                                             PER CURIAM

Submitted on November 2, 2022
Opinion Delivered November 3, 2022

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                           2