Court Opinion

ID: 9352906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 13:08:34.474264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:00:48.512464
License: Public Domain

FILE COPY

                            Fourth Court of Appeals
                                   San Antonio, Texas
                                         January 3, 2023

                                      No. 04-22-00652-CV

  INTERNATIONAL MUSEUM CORPORATION d/b/a Southwest Museum of Art, Tony
                     Webber and John Schumacher,
                             Appellants

                                                v.

                                         Charles TROIS,
                                            Appellee

                  From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                               Trial Court No. 2022-CI-16882
                           Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

                                         ORDER
        On September 30, 2022, International Museum Corporation d/b/a Southwest Museum of
Art, Tony Webber, and John Schumacher filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s
order signed on August 31, 2022. The clerk’s record shows the August 31, 2022 order grants a
motion for partial summary judgment in favor of Charles Trois as to his claim for declaratory
relief against Schumacher, severs the claim from the original cause, and assigns the claim a new
cause number: 2022-CI-16882. However, the order does not dispose of any of Trois’s claims
against International Museum Corporation and Webber.

        Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con
Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tex. 2001). When, as here, “there has not been a conventional trial
on the merits, an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes
of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally
disposes of all claims and all parties.” Id. “Severance does not make an interlocutory judgment
final and appealable if the judgment merely disposes of a subset of the claims between the
parties.” Duke v. Am. W. Steel, LLC, 526 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no
pet.). Because the August 31, 2022 order disposes of only Trois’s declaratory judgment action
against Schumacher, it does not appear final as to International Museum Corporation and
Webber. See id. (holding combination of partial summary judgment order and severance order
does not automatically result in final and appealable judgment if it does not dispose of all claims
against all parties in appeal).
                                                                                                    FILE COPY

       We therefore ordered appellants to file a written response by December 1, 2022 showing
cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. On November 20, 2022,
appellants filed a response indicating they mistakenly filed their notice of appeal under the
wrong cause number instead of the severed cause number, 2022-CI-1688. According to
appellants, the trial court’s August 31, 2022 order is final under the severed cause number
because there are no pending issues. They also filed an amended notice of appeal correcting the
cause number. Based on the foregoing, we reinstate the appellate deadlines and retain this case
on this court’s docket. We also direct the Clerk of the Court to change the trial court cause
number from 2019-CI-0747 to 2022-CI-16882.

        We note, however, International Museum Corporation and Webber do not appear to be
parties to this appeal. When the notice of appeal was filed, it invoked our jurisdiction only over
the parties to the order being appealed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b) (“The filing of a notice of
appeal by any party invokes the appellate court’s jurisdiction over all parties to the trial court’s
judgment or order appealed from.”). Here, the only parties to the severed order are Trois and
Schumacher because the order disposes of only Trois’s declaratory judgment action against
Schumacher.1 Accordingly, we order International Museum Corporation and Webber to file a
written response in this court by February 2, 2023 showing cause how they are parties to this
appeal and how we have jurisdiction over them. International Museum Corporation and Webber
are advised if they fail to satisfactorily respond, we may dismiss the appeal as to them for lack of
jurisdiction. See Motor Vehicle Bd. of the Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. El Paso Indep. Auto. Dealers
Assoc., Inc., 1 S.W.3d 108, 110 (Tex. 1999) (per curiam) (“Generally, appeal is available only to
parties of record.”); Gunn v. Cavanaugh, 391 S.W.2d 723, 725 (Tex.1965) (stating rule that
“only parties to the record may exercise [the right of appeal]”); United Oil & Minerals, Inc. v.
Costilla Energy, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 840, 844 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1999, pet. dism'd) (“Once
a final judgment has been entered, only parties of record may exercise the right of appeal.”).
Appellants’ brief is due thirty days after the ordered response is filed.

                                                            _________________________________
                                                            Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 3rd day of January, 2023.

                                                            ___________________________________
                                                            MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

1 A review of the clerk’s record shows Trois moved for partial summary judgment “as to his claims for declaratory
judgment against Defendant John Schumacher,” and the trial court granted Trois’s motion.