l)ISMISS; Opinion issue4i December 21. 2012.
In The
Etitirt tif pra1
WiitI! Jitrirt uf axa at 1tai
No. 05- 12-00651-CV
LINDA YOUNG, Appellant
V.
GOLFING GREEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. INC. Appell
ee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 76706-CC
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Fillmore. and Myers
Opinion By Justice Fillmore
Subject to a few mostly statutory exceptions not applicable here, appella
te courts have
jurisdiction only over appeals taken from final judgments that dispos
e of all pending parties and
claims in the record. See Lehniann ‘. Hcir-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). In this
appeal. Linda Young challenges an order granting an interlocutory surnma
ryjudgment. to the Golfing
Green Homeowners Association, Inc. on its claims against Young. The
order indicates the trial court
found Young to be in violation of certain provisions of the neighborhood
s declaration of covenants
and rules of conduct and, as requested by Golfing Green, granted perman
ent injunctive relief
requiring, among other things, that Young make certain permanent
changes to her premises. The
interlocutory order, however, does not provide a date by which Young
must comply, specifically
states it does not dispose of Young’s counterclaims against Golfing
Green, and “jdjecree{sI” that
Golfing Green “shall ha\ e all rits of execuLion and other processes necessary to enforce this
judement when came becomes final.”
At ,ur direction. the parties filed briefs idressing our jurisdiction over the order. Young
contends in her brief that we have jurisdiction because the summary judgment dispos
ed of all of
Golfing Green’s claims, including a claiiri for permanent injunctive relief. Golfing Green counte
rs
we do not have juri.sdictioii because Young’s counterclaims remain pending. We agree with
Golfing
Greeii Alihouh it grants permanent injunctive relict, the interlocutory summary
.
judgment order
[ails to expressly dispose of oungs couiiterclaiins and makes enforcement of the injunc
tive relief
granted dependent on the disposition of oung’s counterclaims. A summary judgm
ent that fails to
dispose of all claims, even if it grants a permanent injunction, is interlocutory and unappe
alable.
See City a! Beaumont v. Gui/Ion’, 751 S.W.2d 491,492 (Tex. 1988) (per euriam); Aloe Vera
ojAm.,
Inc. c. CIC Cosmetics Iii!’! Corp., 5 17 S.W.2d 433. 435 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1974, no writ).
In concluding we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we distinguish the facts before us from
the facts in Qwest Communications Corp. c.AT& TCorp.. 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2000) (per
euriam).
In Qwest, the trial court entered an order restricting Qwest’s activities in the United
States for a
period of three years. The court of appeals dismissed Qwest’ s interlocutory appeal of the
order,
concluding the order did not meet the “traditional requirements” of a temporary injunction because
it did not preserve the status quo. require a bond, set a trial date, or require the clerk to issue
a writ
of injunction and because the order’s duration was not limited until final judgment or further
order
of the court. Id. at 335. Reversing the court of appeals’ judgment, the supreme court concluded that
“Iblecause the trial court’s order place[dI restrictions on Qwest and Iwasi made effective
immediately so that it operaterdi during the pendency of the suit, it function[edl as a temporary
injunction.” 1(1. at 337.
1 lere, ‘oung did not tile a notice ol accelerated appeal and does not argue the injunc
tive
rel id ranted. though relerred u) as ‘permanent’ by the trial court, is temporary
and coiilers
unsdict ion upon us pursuant to st.c lion 5 I ( ) I 4( a )(4 Additionally, the complained—of order
lollowed a hearing on a motion for summary judgment and Was not based on any pleadmgs seeking
temporary injunctive relief. In fact, Golfing Green never sought temporary injunctive relief.
Finally,
the summary judgment order does not contain a date by which Young must compl
y with the
pennandlit injunction or provide an enlorcemeni mechanism br non—compliance until
following
disposition of Young’s counterclaims.
Accordingly. we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction .
(’L’ Tux. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
5
ROBERT M. FILLMORE
JUSTICE
120651 F.P05
—3—
Q!niirt uf Appia1a
fiftI! JiIrirt Lii ixa at DaI1L!
JUDGMENT
LINDA YOUNG, Appellant Appeal from the County Court at Law of
Kauhnan County. Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 76706
No, 05 1 2M065 I CV V. CC),
Opinion delivered Lw Justice Fillmore.
(IOLFIN(i GREEN HOMEOWNERS Justices Moseley and Myers participating.
ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we I)ISMISS the appeal. We ORDE
R
that appellee Golfing Green Homeowners Association, Inc. recover its costs of this appeal
from
appellant Linda Young.
Judgment entered December 21, 2012.
I
ROBERT M. FILLMORE
JUSTICE
Young, Linda v. Golfing Green Homeowners Association, Inc.
Combined Opinion