"When a contract contains an ambiguity, the granting of a motion for summary judgment is improper because the interpretation of the instrument becomes a fact issue" for the jury. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 445 S.W.3d 790, 798-99 (Tex. App.—Hous. [1st. Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (quoting Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tex. 1983)). A court will find a contract unambiguous only if it may properly be given a certain legal meaning or interpretation.
See id. However, this exception is inapplicable when the parties do not move for summary judgment on the same issue. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 445 S.W.3d 790, 800-01 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.). The parties in this case moved for summary judgment on different issues—Morales moved for summary judgment on his breach of contract claim and the District moved for summary judgment solely on the basis of two affirmative defenses.
The general rule is that a denial of a summary judgment is not reviewable on appeal. See Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.3d 623, 625 (Tex. 1996); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 445 S.W.3d 790, 801 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.). Further, where a motion for summary judgment is denied by the trial court and the case is tried on the merits, the order denying summary judgment cannot be reviewed on appeal.
"[T]he denial of a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order that, with a few exceptions, is not appealable." Mitchell v. Mitchell, 445 S.W.3d 790, 801 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.); United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Tasdemiroglu, 25 S.W.3d 914, 916 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). Because no such exception applies here, we overrule Bechem's second issue.