This is an appeal by WM Specialty Mortgage, L.L.C., AMC Mortgage Services, Inc., and Ameriquest Mortgage Company from a summary judgment. On our initial review of the clerk's record, received January 25, 2008, this Court noted that the judgment from which the appeal was brought did not dispose of all issues and all parties. On January 28, we mailed a letter to the appellants requesting that they show this Court how we had jurisdiction over the appeal.
We have now received a "Notice Regarding Want of Jurisdiction" from the appellants, stating that, after their review of the trial court's record, all parties and all claims have not been disposed of by the judgment.
The general rule is that a final and appealable judgment must determine the entire controversy, disposing of all the parties and issues in a case. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
Accordingly, because the judgment of the trial court does not dispose of all parties and all issues, and is therefore nonappealable, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: February 11, 2008
Date Decided: February 12, 2008
on v. State, 187 S.W.3d 429, 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Williams v. State, 191 S.W.3d 242, 262 (Tex. App.--Austin 2006, no pet.) (claims of cruel and unusual punishment must be presented in timely manner); Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d 760, 768 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd) (failure to complain to trial court that sentences were cruel and unusual waived claim of error for appellate review). We have reviewed the records of the trial proceeding. No relevant request, objection, or motion was made. And, while this Court has held that a motion for new trial is an appropriate way to preserve this type of claim for review (see Williamson v. State, 175 S.W.3d 522, 523-24 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2005, no pet.), and Delacruz v. State, 167 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2005, no pet.)), no motion for new trial was filed. Thompson has not preserved such an issue for appeal.
There being no other issues before us, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: May 7, 2009
Date Decided: May 8, 2009
Do Not Publish
1. Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.