Court Opinion

ID: 9913192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-27 07:09:41.307321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:47.615494
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 22, 2023

                                        In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-23-00794-CV

             SARA SANCHEZ AND DIMAS CASTRO, Appellants
                               V.
                     F&M PROPERTIES, Appellee

                 On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
                             Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-00788-A

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
             Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia
                          Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
      Appellants appeal from the trial court’s April 20, 2023 amended judgment.

The judgment provided appellants an opportunity to seek injunctive relief in the

district court. It also provided that in the event injunctive relief is either not sought

or the request denied, a further hearing would be held to determine the amount of

attorney’s fees. Because the judgment left the issue of attorney’s fees to be

determined, we questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal and directed appellants

to file a letter brief addressing our concern.
       Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a judgment that is final and

definite. See Hinde v. Hinde, 701 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Tex. 1985) (per curiam). A

judgment is final if it disposes of all parties and issues; it is definite if it defines the

parties’ rights or “provide[s] a definite means of ascertaining [the parties’] rights”

such that “ministerial officers can carry the judgment to execution without

ascertainment of facts” not stated in the judgment. Id. (quoting Steed v. State, 183

S.W.2d 458, 460 (Tex. 1944)).

       In their letter brief, appellants assert that the judgment became retroactively

final because no injunctive relief was granted. Alternatively and, without citing any

authority for doing so, they ask that this appeal continue as an interlocutory appeal.

       Because the judgment leaves the matter of attorney’s fees to be determined, it

is not definite. See Hinde, 701 S.W.2d at 639; Paxton v. Simmons, 640 S.W.3d 588,

598 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022, no pet.). Moreover, there is no statutory authority for

an interlocutory appeal of the order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §

51.014(a) (listing appealable interlocutory orders). Thus, we dismiss the appeal for

want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                              /Bill Pedersen, III//
220794f.p05                                   BILL PEDERSEN, III
                                              JUSTICE

                                            –2–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                JUDGMENT

SARA SANCHEZ AND DIMAS                      On Appeal from the County Court at
CASTRO, Appellants                          Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas
                                            Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-00788-
No. 05-23-00794-CV         V.               A.
                                            Opinion delivered by Justice
F&M PROPERTIES, Appellee                    Pedersen, III. Justices Partida-
                                            Kipness and Garcia participating.

    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.

      It is ORDERED that appellee F&M PROPERTIES recover its costs of this
appeal from appellants SARA SANCHEZ AND DIMAS CASTRO.

Judgment entered this 22nd day of December, 2023.

                                      –3–