Anita Hutchings and Hayley Hutchings v. the Berkshire Companies, L.P. D/B/A the Krupp Companies, L.P., and Dana Hampton, Agent Tigor Hardono, Agent, Christina Hillebrand

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

DISMISS Opinion Filed December 3, 2021 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00884-CV ANITA HUTCHINGS AND HAYLEY HUTCHINGS, Appellants V. THE BERSHIRE COMPANIES, L.P. D/B/A THE KRUPP COMPANIES, L.P., DANA HAMPTON, AGENT TIGOR HARDONO, AGENT CHRISTINA HILLEBRAND, AGENT JOHN WU, AGENT CHELSEA ANTON, CONSERVICE, L.L.C., PARCEL PENDING, INC., QUADIENT, INC., HOOVER SLOVACEK ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP, HOWARD BOOKSTAFF, COLBY BINFORD, AND DANIEL EDMUNDS, Appellees On Appeal from the 471st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 471-02530-2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Smith Opinion by Chief Justice Burns The Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal as there did not appear to be an appealable order. We directed appellants to file a letter brief addressing our concern with an opportunity for appellees to file a response. Appellants have complied. Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and certain interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a). A final judgment is one that disposes of all parties and claims. See Lehman, 39 S.W.3d at 195. Appellants filed a lawsuit against thirteen defendants. Four of those defendants, appellees The Berkshire Companies, L.P. d/b/a The Krupp Companies, L.P., Dana Hampton, Agent Tigor Hardono, and Agent Chelsea Anton, filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a. Appellants appeal from the trial court’s September 1, 2021 order granting that motion. That order, however, is neither a final judgment, as it does not dispose of all parties and all claims, nor an appealable interlocutory order. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a). We note that the order states it is “final as to the severed cause.” However, the record before this Court does not contain a severance order. Although appellants filed a letter brief, nothing therein demonstrates our jurisdiction over this appeal.1 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE 210884F.P05 1 Appellants note the District Clerk has not provided them with a copy of the clerk’s record which impacts their ability to respond to our jurisdictional letter. Appellants, however, do not assert that a final judgment exists. –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ANITA HUTCHINGS AND On Appeal from the 471st Judicial HAYLEY HUTCHINGS, Appellants District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 471-02530- No. 05-21-00884-CV V. 2021. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice THE BERSHIRE COMPANIES, Burns. Justices Molberg and Smith L.P. D/B/A THE KRUPP participating. COMPANIES, L.P., DANA HAMPTON, AGENT TIGOR HARDONO, AGENT CHRISTINA HILLEBRAND, AGENT JOHN WU, AGENT CHELSEA ANTON, CONSERVICE, L.L.C., PARCEL PENDING, INC., QUADIENT, INC., HOOVER SLOVACEK ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP, HOWARD BOOKSTAFF, COLBY BINFORD, AND DANIEL EDMUNDS, Appellees In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. Judgment entered December 3, 2021 –3–