Court Opinion

ID: 9909804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 09:09:07.523741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:57.810531
License: Public Domain

In The
                                 Court of Appeals
                        Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                         No. 07-23-00396-CV

   IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF JOE DAVIS AND JANELLE HUI LUO

                        On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
                                  Williamson County, Texas1
               Trial Court No. 23-0277-FCl, Honorable Rick J. Kennon, Presiding

                                         December 6, 2023
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       Appellant, Janelle Hui Luo, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s Order

Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. We dismiss the appeal for

want of jurisdiction.

       In January 2023, Appellee, Joe Davis, filed a petition for divorce from Luo. Davis

later filed a motion for a partial summary judgment regarding the enforceability of the

parties’ premarital agreement. On September 7, 2023, the trial court signed an order

       1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
granting Davis partial summary judgment and finding that the premarital agreement is

fully enforceable. Luo filed this appeal from the Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment. A final hearing in the divorce proceeding has not yet been

scheduled.

        We have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final judgment or from an

interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex.

1998) (per curiam). “[W]hen there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an

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, 39 S.W.3d at 205. Here, the trial court’s partial

summary judgment order is not a final judgment as it does not include any finality

language, nor does it dispose of all pending parties and claims. Further, we have found

no statutory authority permitting its interlocutory appeal.

        By letter of November 2, 2023, we notified Luo that it did not appear we have

jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial court’s Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment is not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order.

We directed Luo to show grounds for continuing the appeal by November 13, 2023, or we

would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Luo has not responded to our letter to

date.

        Because there is no final judgment or appealable order presented for review, we

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                                         Per Curiam
                                              2