Court Opinion

ID: 9410036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 08:09:49.479588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:55.110788
License: Public Domain

In The
                              Court of Appeals
                     Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                   No. 07-22-00158-CV

                         GEORGE R. CHAPMAN, APPELLANT

                                            V.

        MARY STOY JOHNSON, STEPHANIE BROOKE JOHNSON, LLC, AND
             STEPHANIE BROOKE JOHNSON-TURNER, APPELLEES

                          On Appeal from the 222nd District Court
                                 Deaf Smith County, Texas
             Trial Court No. CI-2019B-024, Honorable Roland D. Saul, Presiding

                                       July 6, 2023
                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
                     Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

      George R. Chapman appealed from a trial court order simply granting a motion for

summary judgment. The motion had been filed by Mary Stoy Johnson, Stephanie Brooke

Johnson, LLC, and Stephanie Brooke Johnson-Turner (Johnson). Because the summary

judgment order presented for appellate review is not a final, appealable summary

judgment, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
      Chapman sued Appellees for alleged fraudulent transfer of assets in avoidance of

a judgment debt. Chapman sought damages, attorney’s fees, and equitable relief. In

response, Johnson counterclaimed and subsequently filed a combined no-evidence and

traditional motion for summary judgment. On December 16, 2021, the trial court signed

an order stating that the motion was granted.

      Since Chandler v. Reder, 635 S.W.2d 895 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1982, no writ), this

Court has continuously held that an order simply granting a summary judgment motion is

not final and appealable. Id. at 896–97; Disco Machine of Liberal Co. v. Payton, 900

S.W.2d 71, 73–74 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1995, writ denied); see also Keenan v. Robin,

No. 07-21-00190-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 1225, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 22,

2022, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (saying the same). In Disco Machine, we noted

that merely granting such a motion was nothing more than indication of the trial court’s

ruling on the motion itself. Disco Machine of Liberal Co., 900 S.W.2d at 74. Such does

“not express a specific settlement of rights between the parties” nor does it “disclose the

specific and final result officially condoned by and recognized under the law.” Id. Thus,

orders that merely grant the motion are not final because they do not adjudicate the rights

involved or evince a final result recognized by the law. See id.

      By letter on June 7, 2022, we notified Chapman of this circumstance and directed

him to show grounds for continuing the appeal. We further informed him if no such

grounds were provided, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. On June

24, 2022, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed containing an Order Granting Nonsuit.

No other order remedying the finality of the summary judgment order has been filed to

date. The Order Granting Nonsuit did not supply the final summary judgment needed per

                                            2
Reder and its progeny.       It merely memorialized Johnson’s decision to drop its

counterclaim against Chapman.

      Since approximately a year has lapsed from the date Chapman was informed of

the jurisdictional defect and because we have yet to receive a final summary judgment,

we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                                       Per Curiam

                                            3