Court Opinion

ID: 9943754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 08:11:10.405374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:19.215379
License: Public Domain

In the
                   Court of Appeals
           Second Appellate District of Texas
                    at Fort Worth
                 ___________________________
                      No. 02-23-00459-CV
                 ___________________________

HAACKER CORPORATION, D/B/A FLOOR COVERINGS INTERNATIONAL
                FLOWER MOUND, Appellant

                                  V.

COREY NORALS, ALEXIAS NORALS, BEVERLY CROUCH, AND THOMAS
                    CROUCH, Appellees

              On Appeal from the 342nd District Court
                      Tarrant County, Texas
                  Trial Court No. 342-340147-23

           Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J.
                 Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Haacker Corporation, d/b/a Floor Coverings International Flower Mound,

filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s November 1, 2023 order denying

Haacker’s motion for continuance and its November 3, 2023 order granting summary

judgment for Appellees Beverly and Thomas Crouch. The orders did not expressly

dispose of any claim by or against Appellees Corey and Alexias Norals and contained

no language of finality. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001)

(discussing language that can make an order final). Because neither order appeared to

be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, we notified Haacker of our

concern that we did not have jurisdiction over its appeal. See id. at 195 (stating that

“the general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be

taken only from a final judgment”); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

§ 51.014(a) (listing interlocutory orders from which a party may appeal).

      Haacker filed a response asserting that it had filed a motion to sever the claims

against the Crouches from those asserted against the Norals, and it asked this court to

retain this appeal because a severance order would make Haacker’s appeal “ripe and

proper.” We notified the parties that we would give them until January 29, 2024, to

correct the defect in the record by furnishing this court with a signed copy of an order

or judgment that made the trial court’s previous orders appealable. See Tex. R. App. P.

44.3, 44.4(a)(2). We warned the parties that this appeal would be dismissed for want

                                           2
of jurisdiction if no order or judgment had been signed and furnished to this court by

that date. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

       We have not received a copy of an order or judgment that makes the appealed-

from orders appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                     Per Curiam

Delivered: February 22, 2024

                                             3