Opinion
No. 05-09-00305-CV
Opinion issued August 24, 2009.
On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 06-01772.
Before Justices WRIGHT, BRIDGES, and FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Court has before it appellee's July 27, 2009 motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and for attorneys' fees and costs. Appellee asserts that there is no final appealable judgment in this case because the trial court's February 19, 2009 order did not dispose of all of the legal controversies. Appellee asserts the trial court's order specifically reserved the issue of whether attorneys' fees are reasonable and necessary. Appellant did not respond to the motion to dismiss.
We have reviewed the record and agree there is no final judgment. Generally, a party may only appeal from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). For purposes of appeal, a judgment is final if it disposes of all pending parties and claims. Id. There is a handwritten notation on the judgment that "[t]he issue of whether an award of attorney's fees is equitable and just remains pending." Because of the pending claim for attorneys' fees, the judgment does not appear final on its face. And, because the judgment does not dispose of the claim for attorneys' fees, it is not an appealable judgment. See McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam). Accordingly, we grant appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal and deny appellee's motion for attorneys' fees.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.