Court Opinion

ID: 9412415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-31 08:06:44.932963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:18.466256
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
      ___________________________
           No. 02-23-00218-CV
      ___________________________

      TARA MCDANIEL, Appellant

                     V.

CLIVE RYAN AND LAFREE RYAN, Appellees

   On Appeal from the 153rd District Court
           Tarrant County, Texas
       Trial Court No. 153-323962-21

   Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.
     Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

         Appellant Tara McDaniel, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from the

May 26, 2023 “Order Granting Defendants[’] Summary Judgment.”                   The order

specifically states that the order “disposes of and resolves all claims against all parties,

except for the [c]ourt’s determination of the final amount of Defendants’ attorneys’

fees and costs, which shall be briefed for inclusion in a final judgment.”

         Unless specifically authorized by statute, Texas appellate courts only have

jurisdiction to review final judgments. Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d

582, 585 (Tex. 2012) (op. on reh’g). Because no statute authorizes an interlocutory

appeal in this case, this court has jurisdiction over this appeal only if the trial court’s

summary-judgment order is a final judgment. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

§ 51.014(a) (listing interlocutory orders that are appealable); Johns v. Fox Hall, Ltd., No.

01-22-00403-CV, 2022 WL 16756369, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 8,

2022, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). A summary-judgment order is final for

purposes of appeal only if it either “actually disposes of all claims and parties then

before the court . . . or it states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment as

to all claims and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192–93 (Tex.

2001). It is well established that an order that does not dispose of all pending claims,

including attorney’s fees, is not a final order. See Farm Bureau Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v.

Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161, 164 (Tex. 2015); McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex.

2001).

                                             2
      Here, the order makes clear that attorneys’ fees remain pending. Thus, the

summary-judgment order is not a final judgment. See Rogers, 455 S.W.3d at 164;

McNally, 52 S.W.3d at 196. Rather, the summary-judgment order is interlocutory, and

as mentioned, no interlocutory appeal is authorized from the order. See Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a).

      We therefore notified the parties that because the May 26, 2023 order did not

appear to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, this appeal could

be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless any party filed a response on or before July

10, 2023, showing grounds for continuing this appeal.

      McDaniel did not file a response, but on July 12, 2023, she filed a motion

requesting an extension of time to allow her to seek a permissive appeal from the trial

court. In that motion, McDaniel acknowledges that we lack jurisdiction over her

appeal. However, McDaniel did not follow the procedures for a permissive appeal,

including filing a timely petition for permissive appeal within fifteen days after the

order to be appealed was signed and obtaining permission from the trial court to

appeal the otherwise unappealable order. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(a), (c), (e); see also

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(d), (f). Accordingly, we deny McDaniel’s

motion for extension of time.

      Because the summary-judgment order is not a final judgment and because an

interlocutory appeal of the order is not authorized by statute, we conclude that we

lack jurisdiction over the appeal.     We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of

                                           3
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Rogers, 455 S.W.3d at 164; McNally, 52

S.W.3d at 196; Bethany v. Bethany, No. 03-19-00532-CV, 2020 WL 1327398, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Austin Mar. 20, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

                                                       Per Curiam

Delivered: July 27, 2023

                                            4