Opinion
01-22-00576-CV
09-27-2022
TODD SNELLING, Appellant v. WILLIAM F. TURNER, JR., Appellee
On Appeal from the 113th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2020-83177
Panel consists of Kelly, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra, Justices.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Todd Snelling, filed a notice of appeal from two July 21, 2022 trial court orders, including (1) a "[c]orrected [o]rder" granting the "Motion for Summary Judgment to Enforce the Stipulation of the Parties" filed by appellee, William F. Turner, Jr., and (2) an order of referral for mediation.
The underlying litigation was initiated by appellee to resolve a boundary dispute between the parties, alleging causes of action against appellant for trespass to try title, trespass, removal of cloud on title, and assault. In his petition, appellee sought to "recover the maximum available damages . . . attorney's fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest." On February 14, 2022, appellee filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment to Enforce the Stipulation of the Parties," requesting that the trial court grant summary judgment and order that, pursuant to the findings of an independent survey of the property, agreed to by the parties, appellee be permitted to "erect a fence . . . along the boundary between" the parties' respective properties.
Appellant failed to respond to the motion, and on June 3, 2022, the trial court entered an order granting appellee's motion. On June 7, 2022, appellee filed a "Motion to Sign Corrected Order," requesting that the trial court enter a new order granting appellee's motion for summary judgment. The corrections requested in appellee's motion did not modify the terms of the judgment, but instead corrected clerical errors. On July 21, 2022, the trial court entered an order granting appellee's motion and entered its "Corrected Order Granting [Appellee's] Motion for Summary Judgment to Enforce the Stipulation of the Parties." Notably, the trial court's order did not dispose of appellee's claims for damages, and expressly stated that it was "not a final judgment."
Separately, but also on July 21, 2022, the trial court entered an "Order of Referral for Mediation to Dispute Resolution Center." In the order, the trial court stated that the "case [was] appropriate for mediation," and it ordered the parties to participate in mediation within sixty days of the date of the order.
On August 4, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court's two July 21, 2022 orders. On August 24, 2022, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction because appellant has appealed from two interlocutory orders of the trial court.
We grant appellee's motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
This Court generally has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and specific interlocutory orders that the Legislature has designated as appealable orders. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447-48 (Tex. 2011); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014. A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it either (1) actually disposes of all claims and parties then before the court, regardless of its language, or (2) states with "unmistakable clarity" that it is intended as a final judgment as to all claims and all parties. See Farm Bureau Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161, 163 (Tex. 2015).
Here, appellant has appealed from two July 21, 2022 orders, including an interlocutory order granting appellee's "Motion for Summary Judgment to Enforce the Stipulation of the Parties." This order satisfies neither of the requirements set forth by the Texas Supreme Court. First, the order does not dispose of every pending claim because it does not dispose of appellee's claims for damages in the underlying proceeding. See Van Zandt Health Care Prop., Inc. v. Redd, No. 12-16-00283-CV, 2017 WL 2264846, at *2 (Tex. App.-Tyler May 24, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding order granting summary judgment was not final order because it did not dispose of all claims, including claims for damages, court costs, and attorney's fees). Further, the order does not state with "unmistakable clarity" that it is intended as a final judgment. Instead, it expressly stated that it was "not a final judgment."
Appellant has further appealed from the trial court's July 21, 2022 "Order of Referral for Mediation to Dispute Resolution Center." However, "[a]n order referring a case to mediation is not a final judgment subject to appeal." See Interest of S.J., No. 13-20-00543-CV, 2021 WL 921797, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi- Edinburg Mar. 11, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of mediation order for lack of jurisdiction).
Because appellant has appealed from two interlocutory trial court orders, and appellant has not identified a statute-and we have found none-that would authorize an interlocutory appeal from either order, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See V.I.P. Royal Palace, LLC v. Hobby Event Ctr. LLC, No. 01-18-00621-CV, 2020 WL 3579563, at *6 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] July 2, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Appellee filed his motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on August 24, 2022. More than ten days have passed and appellant has not filed a response to the motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.3(a).
Accordingly, we grant appellee's motion, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.