dissenting.
The majority opinion bases its dismissal of this appeal on its conclusions that: (1) “Bank One, N.A.; Banc One Texas Leasing Corporation” was two plaintiffs, rather than one; and, thus, (2) the trial court’s judgment (the “judgment”) in favor of only “Bank One, N.A.” lacked finality for failing to dispose of the claims of Banc One Texas Leasing Corporation. I disagree with each conclusion.
In every pleading and motion filed in this case and every brief filed on appeal, there is but a single plaintiff and appellee, “Bank One, N.A.; Bank One Texas Leasing Corporation [or Corp.]” that is always referred to in the singular often shortened to just “Bank One, N.A.”
On the certificate of title to the leased vehicle, “Banc One Texas Lsng. Corp. in C/O Pablo Tello” is shown as the owner, and “Bank One Texas NA” is shown as the lienholder. However, nothing in the record indicates whether: (1) “Bank One Texas NA”; (2) “Bank One, NA”; (2) Bank One Texas Leasing Corporation; and (4) “Bank One, N.A.; Bank One Texas Leasing Corporation,” are two, three, or four entities. In that “Bank One, N.A.; Bank One Texas Leasing Corporation” has brought this action as a single plaintiff, and no special exception, verified pleading, or other challenge has been asserted to its capacity to sue in that name as a single party, I can see no authority or basis (and certainly no reason) for this court to sua sponte conclude that it could not do so or was not doing so, or that the judgment in favor of the commonly shortened name, “Bank One, N.A.” could not or did not dispose of the claims of the one plaintiff named in this case, as the judgment plainly purports to do.
The record also does not indicate the type of lien held by “Bank One Texas NA,” for what indebtedness that lien provided security, or against what or whose interests) it might have been enforceable. Therefore, the record does not reflect that any entity besides the lessor of the vehicle (and presumably the single named plaintiff that brought the action) would have had standing to assert a claim against Tello with regard to the leased vehicle, such that the trial court would have had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the judgment in favor of any other entity (as the majority assumes to have occurred). Under these circumstances, the decision of the majority that the judgment in favor of “Bank One, N.A.” failed to dispose of claims of a second plaintiff is not supported by the record, and the resulting dismissal will serve only to needlessly delay the final resolution of this ease.