In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-14-00172-CV
____________________
IN THE INTEREST OF C.K.M.
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 279th District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C-215,826-A
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 9, 2014, Appellants filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s
“Order Granting Motion to Strike and Dismissing [Appellants’] Pleadings for
Termination and Conservatorship Due to Lack of Standing” signed and entered by
the trial court on March 21, 2014. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the trial court’s Order was not a final judgment
because it did not dispose of all of the live claims before the trial court. In their
response, Appellants contend the record is ambiguous and that they “were unable
1
to determine if the Court’s Order of March 21, 2014 constituted a final, appealable
order or not.”
“[W]hen there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or
judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every
pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally
disposes of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,
205 (Tex. 2001). According to the record now before us, the trial court did not sign
the Order after a conventional trial on the merits and the record lacks any clear
indication that the trial court intended the order to completely dispose of the entire
case.1 See id. We conclude that the March 21, 2014 Order is an interlocutory order.
Therefore, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
________________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on September 3, 2014
Opinion Delivered September 4, 2014
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1
We note that the order does not address grandparent access, and it lacks
clear and unequivocal language of finality.
2