Opinion
No. 14-08-00600-CV
Opinion filed August 13, 2009.
On Appeal from the 113rd District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2006-81510.
Panel consists of Justices ANDERSON, GUZMAN, and BOYCE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Gordon Kahre appeals from a judgment entered against him on his claims against six of the nine defendants he sued in trial court cause number 2006-81510. Because the order he appeals is neither a final judgment disposing of all parties and claims nor an order for which interlocutory review is authorized, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case is one of several claims originally filed as part of Cause Number 2005-44301. The original cause was severed into several cases, including the instant case, Kahre v. Martz, Cause No. 2006-81510, in which appellant Gordon Kahre sued defendants (1) Michael P. Martz, (2) Inline Development Corporation, (3) Inline Utilities, L.L.C., (4) Sugarberry Place Phase II, Ltd., (5) MMRM, Ltd., (6) One Martz, L.L.C., (7) ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc., (8) Amwest Financial, and (9) Monopoly Appraisals. On April 25, 2008, the trial court signed a judgment entitled "Final Judgment," in which the trial court recited that counsel for Kahre and for six defendants — Michael Martz, Inline Development Corp., Inline Utilities, L.L.C., Sugarberry Place Phase II, Ltd., MMRM, Ltd., and One Martz, L.L.C. — appeared for trial on April 15, 2008. The trial court further recited that when the case was called for trial, counsel for Kahre announced that he was not ready to try the case, and counsel for the defendants announced ready. The trial court concluded the order by stating, "Plaintiff having submitted no evidence, upon motion of Defendants, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that Plaintiff take nothing and that Defendants go hence without day [sic] and recover their costs." Significantly, there is no mention in the judgment of defendants ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc., Amwest Financial, or Monopoly Appraisals, although it is apparent from the record that at least one of these defendants appeared in the case.
Specifically, the record contains motions for summary judgment and for severance filed by ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc., but no orders granting either motion.
Kahre filed a motion for new trial, to which the six defendants named in the judgment responded. The trial court denied the motion, and Kahre brought this appeal in which he argues that the trial court improperly set this case and another case at the same time in violation of various state, local, and administrative rules of procedure. But because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we do not reach the issue presented.
II. ANALYSIS
With certain narrow exceptions inapplicable here, only final judgments are appealable. Tex. A M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 841 (Tex. 2007). A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending claims and parties, except as necessary to carry out the decree. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The order at issue in this case does not purport to dispose of all parties and all claims, and the record before us confirms that claims remain pending against parties who were not named in the order.
See TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (Vernon 2008) (authorizing interlocutory appeal of specific orders).
III. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the trial court's order, although entitled a "final judgment," is a non-appealable interlocutory order, and we accordingly dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.