Court Opinion

ID: 9395127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 08:09:45.358938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:05.717392
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-23-00022-CV

      IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.M.D., A CHILD

         On Appeal from the County Court at Law
                  Bowie County, Texas
             Trial Court No. 22C1372-CCL

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
      Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appellant has appealed the trial court’s February 16, 2023, summary judgment order.

After reviewing the clerk’s record filed in this matter, we noted a potential defect in our

jurisdiction over this appeal.

       “[T]he general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be

taken only from a final judgment.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.

2001). “A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and

claims in the record . . . .” Id. Generally, an interlocutory judgment becomes final when it

merges into the final judgment disposing of the entire case. See Roccaforte v. Jefferson Cnty.,

341 S.W.3d 919, 924 (Tex. 2011).

       The trial court’s February 16, 2023, summary judgment order does not resolve all claims

and issues between the parties. It does nothing more than find that the appellant is not the father

of A.G.M.D. It is not clear from the trial court’s order whether that finding prevents appellant

from pursuing all claims and issues raised in his petition. Further, the order does not resolve the

claims and issues raised by A.G.M.D.’s mother in her counter-petition.                Under these

circumstances, the February 16, 2023, summary judgment order is not a final, appealable order.

See Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Debose, No. 01-08-00717, 2009 WL 793851, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 26, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Consequently, we do not have

jurisdiction over this appeal.

       By letter dated April 13, 2023, we notified appellant of this potential jurisdictional defect

and afforded him the opportunity to demonstrate our jurisdiction over the appeal,

                                                2
notwithstanding the noted defect.     Appellant was also informed that the appeal would be

dismissed without further notice should appellant fail to file a response. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a). Appellant did not file a response.

       Because we find that the trial court’s February 16, 2023, summary judgment order was

not final and appealable, we are without jurisdiction over this appeal. As a result, we dismiss the

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                              Scott E. Stevens
                                              Chief Justice

Date Submitted:        May 15, 2023
Date Decided:          May 16, 2023

                                                 3