COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-08-078-CV
TIM BRANDON APPELLANT
V.
GOOD BROTHERS, INC. AND APPELLEES
SHAH WAFAYEE
------------
FROM THE 348TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
Appellant Tim Brandon attempts to appeal from a trial court order granting
the “Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment” and “Motion for Summary
Judgment” of Appellees Good Brothers, Inc. and Shah Wafayee on Appellant’s
claims of “malicious and decei[]tful eviction” and “malicious refusal to accept
rents.” On March 4, 2008, we notified Appellant that we were concerned that
1
… See T EX. R. A PP. P. 47.4.
this court may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the order granting
summary judgment in favor of Appellees did not appear to be a final, appealable
order; still pending are Appellees’ supplemental answer and counterpetition and
“Defendants’ Second Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment” in which
Appellees challenge Appellant’s claims of “harassment” and “deception,” all
filed after the trial court signed its order granting Appellees’ first motions for
summary judgment.2 See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,
192–993 (Tex. 2001). We stated that the appeal would be dismissed for want
of jurisdiction unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed
within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. No
response has been filed.
When there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or
judgment is not final for the 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. Id. at 192, 205. Nothing in the
trial court’s order granting Appellees’ motions for summary judgment suggests
that the trial court intended to dispose of Appellant’s claims for “harassment”
2
… The trial court also struck through the portion of the order granting
Appellees’ first motions for summary judgment that stated, “This judgment
finally disposes of all parties and all claims and is appealable.”
2
and “deception” or of Appellees’ claims in their counterpetition and
supplemental answer. Because the order does not appear final on its face and
because it does not dispose of all of Appellant’s claims, it is not an appealable
order or judgment. See Anderson v. Long, 52 S.W.3d 385, 386 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.) (holding that where a summary judgment did
not appear final on its face and did not dispose of plaintiff’s claims for breach
of contract and negligence, it was not an appealable judgment). Accordingly,
because there is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, it is the
opinion of the court that this case should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
See T EX. R. A PP. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL D: HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
DELIVERED: April 3, 2008
3