Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2010

Arched Bridge Company, Inc. v. Homestead Commercial Group, LLC

Arched Bridge Company, Inc. v. Homestead Commercial Group, LLC
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided March 18, 2010

Arched Bridge Company, Inc. v. Homestead Commercial Group, LLC

Opinion

Opinion issued March18, 2010

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-08-00601-CV

———————————

Arched Bridge Company, Inc., Appellant

V.

Homestead Commercial Group, LLC, Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2007-65389A

 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from a February 11, 2008 partial summary judgment, which declared a deed to be void.  The partial summary judgment did not dispose of all the claims raised by plaintiff/appellee Homestead Commercial Group, LLC against defendant/appellant Arched Bridge Company, Inc. and defendant Reliant Energy Services, LLC in Homestead’s live pleading, the November 6, 2007 first amended original petition.

On May 1, 2008, the trial court signed a severance order that placed all claims by Homestead against Arched Bridge and Reliant into case number 2007‑65389A.  There is no other order in the record that disposes of these remaining parties and claims.

We hold there is no final appealable judgment disposing of all parties and all claims.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.012 (Vernon Supp. 2009) (in civil case in which judgment or amount in controversy exceeds $250, exclusive of interest and costs, person may take appeal or writ of error to court of appeals from final judgment of district or county court); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001) (holding that when there has not been conventional trial on merits, 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).  The parties were notified that the appeal was subject to involuntary dismissal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal).  Homestead has responded and agrees the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Arched Bridge has not responded.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Massengale.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.