Order filed December 8, 2011

                                                                       In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                         No. 11-11-00284-CV

                                                    __________

                        RABBI LEVERTOV, AS D/B/A OF CHABAD

                                  HOUSE-LUBAVITCH, Appellant

                                                             V.

          HOLD PROPERTIES, LTD. AND SOCIETY OF CERTIFIED

                       INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC., Appellees

                              On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

                                                            Travis County, Texas

                                           Trial Court Cause No. C-1-CV-09-007813

                                                                     O R D E R

Rabbi Levertov, as d/b/a of Chabad House-Lubavitch, filed a notice of appeal from a judgment entered in this case in favor of the plaintiffs, Hold Properties, Ltd. and Society of Certified Insurance Counselors, Inc.  Upon the filing of the clerk’s record on November 10, 2011, we notified the parties that the judgment did not appear to be a final, appealable judgment.  We requested that appellant respond and show grounds to continue the appeal.  Appellant responded, stating that the judgment appears to be final on its face and disposes of all claims.  We disagree.  Consequently, we abate the appeal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 27.2 to permit the trial court to render a final judgment. 

            Except for “a few mostly statutory exceptions,” this court’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final judgments.  Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).  We determine whether a judgment is a final, appealable judgment based on the language in the judgment and the record of the case.  Id.  A judgment is final and appealable if it disposes of all parties and all claims in the case.  Id. 

            In their petition, the plaintiffs asserted claims for rent, leasehold improvements, and attorney’s fees.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of their claims.  The trial court entered an order in which it granted the motion in part—awarding only part of the rent that was requested and attorney’s fees—and denied the motion in part.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining issues: post-eviction rent and leasehold improvements.  The trial court entered a second order entitled Order Partially Granting Plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Remaining Issues and Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its Affirmative Defenses Against Plaintiff’s Claims.  In this order, the trial court specifically “GRANTED” the plaintiffs’ motion as to their claim for rent and “DENIED” the motion as to their claim for the costs of leasehold improvements.  Based upon these two orders, the plaintiffs moved for final judgment, and the trial court entered what, on its face, appears to be a final judgment.  However, this judgment, entitled “FINAL JUDGMENT,” does not dispose of all parties and all claims.  Nothing in the record shows that the plaintiffs’ claim for leasehold improvements has been nonsuited, severed, or otherwise finally disposed of in the trial court; the denial of summary judgment as to that claim did not dispose of it.

We hold that, although the judgment may purport to be final, it is not; it does not dispose of all parties and all claims.  Because the trial court has not disposed of all of the claims before it, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal at this time.  We abate the appeal pursuant to Rule 27.2 so that the trial court may render a final judgment.  The trial court is instructed to do so on or before January 9, 2012, and the court reporter and district clerk are ordered to file any supplemental records relating to the entry of a final judgment on or before January 19, 2012.  

            The appeal is abated.

December 8, 2011                                                                              PER CURIAM

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.