Court Opinion

ID: 9917001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 09:11:42.475363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:54:44.699664
License: Public Domain

In The
                                 Court of Appeals
                        Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                         No. 07-23-00356-CV

                                EMMANUEL JOHN, APPELLANT

                                                    V.

                                   TONY TRUONG, APPELLEE

                      On Appeal from the County Court at Law Number 2
                                     Travis County, Texas
             Trial Court No. C-1-CV-22-002562, Honorable Eric Shepperd, Presiding

                                           January 9, 2024
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION
                       Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       Appellant, Emmanuel John, appeals from the trial court’s Order on Plaintiff’s

Motion for Release of Funds Held in Court’s Registry.1 We dismiss the appeal the appeal

for want of jurisdiction.

       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.
       This dispute arises from a commercial lease between Appellee, Tony Truong, and

John. In May 2022, Truong filed a forcible detainer action against John in justice court

for nonpayment of rent.     Following the trial, the justice court issued a judgment of

possession in favor of Truong. John later appealed to the county court. In lieu of an

appeal bond, John filed a pauper’s affidavit and paid one month’s rent of $2,200 into the

registry of the court. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.0053(a-1).

       On appeal before the county court, Truong filed an amended petition seeking

possession of the property, past due rent, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit. In September

2022, Truong moved for a writ of possession due to John’s failure to continue to pay the

monthly rent into the court’s registry during the appeal. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN.

§ 24.0054. The county court subsequently granted the motion and issued a writ of

possession of the premises to Truong.

       In March 2023, Truong moved to release the $2,200 held in the court’s registry

pursuant to section 24.0053(a-4) of the Property Code. This provision permits a plaintiff

in an eviction suit to withdraw money deposited in the court registry before the final

disposition of the case.   See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.0053(a-4) (permitting the

withdrawal of money deposited in the court registry, upon sworn motion and hearing,

“before the final determination in the case, dismissal of the appeal, or order of the court

after final hearing”). By order of September 20, 2023, the county court granted the motion

and ordered the funds to be released to Truong. Truong filed this appeal from that order.

The record reflects that Truong’s claims for past due rent, attorney’s fees, and costs of

court remain pending.

                                            2
       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.

       The trial court’s order releasing funds held in the registry of the court is not a final

judgment as it does not include any finality language, nor does it dispose of all pending

parties and claims, specifically Truong’s claims for past due rent, attorney’s fees, and

costs. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN 24.0053(a-4). Further, we have found no statutory

authority permitting its interlocutory appeal.

       By letter of November 21, 2023, we notified John that it did not appear we have

jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial court’s Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for

Release of Funds Held in Court’s Registry is not a final judgment or an appealable

interlocutory order. We directed John to show how we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

John has filed a response but has not demonstrated grounds for continuing the appeal.

       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

                                                 3