Court Opinion

ID: 9372670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 07:09:14.687312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:36.685115
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 16, 2023

                                  S  In The
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                              No. 05-22-01280-CV

         COREY SMITH AND ROCHELLE SMITH, Appellants
                           V.
      SEAN M. WALKER AND MANINA RUTH MATHIS, Appellees

              On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court
                           Dallas County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-04011

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
        Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein
                         Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
      The Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal because there did not

appear to be a final judgment. Generally, this Court has jurisdiction over final

judgments and certain interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v.

Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a).        We directed appellants to file a letter brief

addressing the Court’s concern. Appellant Corey Smith complied.

      Appellants appeal from the trial court’s November 3, 2023 order addressing

appellees’ motion for summary judgment. This order merely recites that appellees’
traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment “should be

GRANTED.” To be final, a judgment must actually dispose of the cause with

decretal language. See In re Wilmington Tr., Nat'l Ass’n, 524 S.W.3d 790, 792

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (concluding that

although the order at issue stated that the motions in question should be granted, it

did not actually dispose of the cause because it did not include the decretal

language typically seen in a 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). The appealed order here

adjudicates nothing. Rather, it merely states that appellees’ summary judgment

motion should be granted.

      Although Mr. Smith filed a letter brief, nothing therein demonstrates this

Court’s jurisdiction over the appeal. Because the appealed order is not a final,

appealable judgment, and nothing before us reflects an appealable order or

judgment has been signed, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                              /Robert D. Burns, III/
                                              ROBERT D. BURNS, III
                                              CHIEF JUSTICE
221280F.P05

                                        –2–
                                S
                          Court of Appeals
                   Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               JUDGMENT

COREY SMITH AND ROCHELLE                   On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial
SMITH, Appellants                          District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                           Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-04011.
No. 05-22-01280-CV       V.                Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
                                           Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein
SEAN M. WALKER AND MANINA                  participating.
RUTH MATHIS, Appellees

    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.

    It is ORDERED that appellees SEAN M. WALKER AND MANINA
RUTH MATHIS recover their costs of this appeal from appellants COREY
SMITH AND ROCHELLE SMITH.

Judgment entered February 16, 2023

                                     –3–