Opinion
No. 14-06-00518-CV
Memorandum Opinion filed September 7, 2006.
On Appeal from the 113th District of Harris Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 03-21015A.
Dismissed.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices YATES and SEYMORE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an attempted appeal from an order granting appellee's motion for summary judgment signed May 15, 2006. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 5, 2006.
On August 18, 2006, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, asserting that the underlying summary judgment is not final. The clerk's record filed in this appeal contains appellee's first amended answer which asserted a counterclaim against appellant. According to appellee's motion, the counterclaim has not been disposed and is scheduled for trial on September 18, 2006. Appellant has filed no response to appellee's motion.
Absent a statutory source of authority to review an interlocutory order, our appellate jurisdiction is limited to final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all parties and claims pending in the case, or if it states with Aunmistakable clarity@ that it is a final judgment as to all claims and parties. Id. at 192-93. If the record does not affirmatively demonstrate our jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed. Southwest Inv. Diversified, Inc. v. Estate of Mieszkuc, 171 S.W.3d 461, 467 (Tex.App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.).
The record in this appeal does not affirmatively demonstrate that we have jurisdiction. Because appellee's counterclaim remains pending in the court below, the summary judgment order signed May 15, 2006, is interlocutory.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.