Court Opinion

ID: 9892035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 11:10:14.006093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.792623
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                         TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                No. 10-23-00224-CV

STANDARD HODGES,
                                                          Appellant
v.

VIEN LADD A/K/A LADD VIEN,
STEPHEN T. VANROOY AND
RANCHERO LAND COMPANY, LP,
                                                          Appellees

                           From the 40th District Court
                               Ellis County, Texas
                              Trial Court No. 110566

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Standard Hodges, who is not indigent and has retained counsel,

appeals from a June 30, 2023 order of dismissal. The order is entitled "Order Granting

Ladd Vien's Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss" and specifically refers to "Defendant Ladd

Vien's Rule 91A Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Petition." See TEX. R. CIV.
P. 91a. The order does not purport to dispose of Hodges's claims against defendants

Stephen Van Rooy and Ranchero Land Company, LP. Our jurisdiction is limited to

appeals from final judgments, except as explicitly allowed by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.

& REM. CODE ANN. § 51.012; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

Because no statute permits interlocutory appeals from Rule 91a dismissals, the record

must demonstrate that the order appealed from is final and appealable. See TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014.

       On August 3, 2023, we notified Hodges that there does not appear to be a final

order from which he can appeal to this Court, and the appeal is subject to dismissal. We

further notified him that the Court may dismiss this appeal unless, within twenty-one

days from the date of the letter, a response is filed showing grounds for continuing the

appeal. On August 24, 2023, Hodges responded by filing a request to retain the appeal

on the docket in which he explained that he had filed a motion to sever in the trial court

and was awaiting a hearing on the motion. Hodges has filed nothing further in this

Court. Because the order Hodges attempts to appeal does not dispose of all parties and

claims, it is not final, and we have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See Lehmann, 39

S.W.3d at 195.

       We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Hodges v. Ladd                                                                      Page 2
                                               STEVE SMITH
                                               Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed October 17, 2023
[CV06]

Hodges v. Ladd                                               Page 3