concurring.
The majority states that the dispositive issue in this appeal is “whether the summary judgment, which purports to be a final ap-pealable order, properly disposed of all issues and parties.” Although I concur that whether the summary judgment is a final appeal-able order is one of the issues presented by this appeal, I do not agree that the issue is dispositive of the appeal. Although I would reverse the judgment as to Longoria and the Rodriguezes, who had not filed motions for summary judgment and were apparently all but forgotten as litigants, I find it necessary to address the merits of the summary judgment rendered in favor of Perez, before reaching a decision as to the propriety of the summary judgment rendered in his favor. For this reason, I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion.
The majority cites Mafrige v. Ross, 866 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.1993), to conclude that “since the judgment grants more relief than is requested, it should be reversed and remanded.” However, a more complete reading of the Mafrige decision, including the Court’s interpretation of its decision in Teer v. Duddlesten, 664 S.W.2d 702 (Tex.1984), clarifies the meaning of its holding. In order to better understand the significance of Maf-rige, it is important to understand the confusion which preceded that decision where an appeals court was faced with a summary judgment which purported to be final but which failed to address and dispose of all parties and issues. This confusion is best described by Judge Peeples in his “reluctant” concurring opinion in Uribe v. Houston Gen. Ins. Co., 849 S.W.2d 447, 451 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1993, no writ).
The majority in Uribe refers to two prior Texas Supreme Court decisions as support for its conclusion that where a final general summary judgment is rendered upon a motion which failed to challenge all causes of action, the entire case must be reversed and remanded to the trial court, “without considering the merits of the appeal.” 849 S.W.2d at 451. In both those eases, the majority noted that the supreme court reversed the entire case without considering the merits of • the issues which were properly addressed in the trial court. Id. at 449. Judge Peeples noted in his concurrence that although a reversal and remand of the entire case was in accordance with the supreme court’s actions, it was not consistent with the supreme court’s language. Id. at 451 (Peeples, J., concurring). Judge Peeples explained as follows:
The supreme court cases on this issue seem to me a little ambiguous about the proper approach because the court’s judgments have not always corresponded precisely to its language. In Chessher v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 658 S.W.2d 563 (Tex.1984), the court said it was improper for the court of appeals to affirm as to the unaddressed causes of action. Id. at 564. But the court did not discuss the merits of the properly addressed cause of action; it reversed and remanded the entire case to the trial court. In Teer v. Duddlesten, 664 S.W.2d 702 (Tex.1984), the summary judgment adjudicated the rights of a defendant, the City of Bellaire, which was not even mentioned in the summary judgment motion. The court reversed the entire cause (involving all parties) and remanded “for a trial of the action against City of Bellaire.” Id. at 705. But the court earlier said the correct approach in such eases is to “remand for a trial of the untried [i.e. unaddressed] issue.” Id. at 704. That language seems to say that an appellate court should review the issues that were proper*93ly joined and litigated, but remand for trial of the other issues.
Id. Although Judge Peeples concurred in Uribe “with some reluctance,” he stated that the sensible course of action would be for appellate courts to review the propriety of the trial court’s ruling on the issues which are addressed and remand as to the unaddressed issues. Id.
Under my reading of Mafrige, the supreme court permits the appellate courts to take this sensible course of action. The issue which was presented in Mafrige was whether the inclusion of a Mother Hubbard clause1 in an order granting summary judgment “makes an otherwise partial summary judgment final for appeal purposes.” 866 S.W.2d at 591. The supreme court initially noted that in Schlipf v. Exxon Corp., 644 S.W.2d 453 (Tex.1982), it held that a summary judgment containing a Mother Hubbard clause was final since it expressly disposed of all issues and parties. Mafrige, 866 S.W.2d at 591. In interpreting its decision in Teer, however, the supreme court initially acknowledged that the summary judgment in Teer was held to be interlocutory for failing to dispose of all parties, although it also contained a Mother Hubbard clause. Mafrige, 866 S.W.2d at 592. The supreme court then asserted:
Instead of dismissing [Teer] for want of jurisdiction, however, or directing the court of appeals to do so, this court proceeded to sever the nonmoving party and remand for trial of its claims. Although we discussed Schlipf, we distinguished it only by saying that the parties in that case had not raised the jurisdictional issue, and it was not fundamental error.
We are of the opinion that the better view is that expressed in Schlipf and manifested by the actual result in Teer. If a summary judgment order appears to be final, as evidenced by the inclusion of language purporting to dispose of all claims or parties, the judgment should be treated as final for purposes of appeal. If the judgment grants more relief than requested, it should be reversed and remanded, but not dismissed.
Id. The majority takes the sentence last quoted from Mafrige to mean that the entire judgment must be reversed and remanded. However, this ignores the supreme court’s opinion that the better view is “manifested by the actual result in Teer.” That result, as specifically set forth by the supreme court, was a severance of the nonmoving party, and a remand for trial of the nonmoving party’s claims. See id. Furthermore, the supreme court concluded its disposal of Mafrige by stating:
..., the court of appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The propriety of the trial court’s granting of the summary judgment on the merits is a matter to be resolved by the court of appeals. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Id. (emphasis added). On remand, the court of appeals followed this instruction by considering the merits of the issues which were properly addressed and remanding the unaddressed issues to the trial court. See Ross v. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., 892 S.W.2d 119, 134 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ).
Therefore, I conclude that in reviewing a summary judgment which purports to be final but disposes of parties or issues which were not addressed in the trial court, the appellate court must consider the merits of the issues and parties which were properly addressed, and then remand any reversed portion of the summary judgment, together with the unaddressed parties and issues, to the trial court. Since I do not believe that the entire judgment in the instant appeal can be reversed and remanded without considering the merits of the issues and parties properly addressed in the trial court, I disagree with the majority’s opinion.
In the instant appeal, it was not proper for the trial court to dispose of the claims *94against Longoria or the Rodriguezes; therefore, I concur with the majority in reversing and remanding the judgment as to Longoria and the Rodriguezes. However, in order to determine the proper disposition of the judgment as to Perez, I find it necessary to briefly address the contentions made by appellant regarding the merits of the judgment granted in Perez’s favor.
The first ground asserted in appellee’s motion for summary judgment was that appellant’s claims were barred by res judicata. In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment asserting the defense of res judica-ta, the movant must produce summary judgment evidence establishing the applicability of the doctrine. See Walker v. Sharpe, 807 S.W.2d 442, 447 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1991, no writ); Boswell v. Handley, 397 S.W.2d 213, 216 (Tex.1965). Res judicata bars litigation of a claim that has been finally adjudicated, “as well as matters that, with the use of diligence, should have been litigated in the prior suit.” Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex.1992).
In his brief, Perez asserts that the property he disposed of would have been divided in the Final Decree of Divorce if he had not disposed of the property prior to the filing of the divorce petition. Perez then argues that appellant was required to assert any claim in the disposed property in the divorce action. However, this ignores that appellant’s suit is not an attack on the divorce decree or the issues resolved therein, but is a suit for fraudulent transfer of property occurring pri- or to the divorce decree and for partition of that property. The fraudulent transfer action and the divorce would not necessarily form a “convenient trial unit,” nor would separate proceedings require “significant duplication of effort of the court and the parties involved.” Barr, 837 S.W.2d at 631; see also Moreno v. Alejandro, 775 S.W.2d 735, 739 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1989, writ denied) (res judicata does not bar post-divorce partition of asset not divided by divorce decree). This is particularly true given the additional parties which would be necessary to the fraudulent transfer action. Therefore, given the independent nature of these claims, I would conclude that they are not barred by res judicata.
The second ground asserted in Perez’s motion for summary judgment is that appellant’s prior knowledge of the property transfer in question negated her fraud claim. However, appellant’s claim is for fraudulent transfer, which is a separate action from fraud. Nobles v. Marcus, 533 S.W.2d 923, 925 (Tex.1976). By mischaracterizing appellant’s claim, Perez failed to address appellant’s claim for fraudulent transfer. Therefore, summary judgment was not properly granted.
Having reviewed the merits of the summary judgment granted in Perez’s favor, I would conclude that the summary judgment was improper. Therefore, I concur in the reversal of the judgment and remand of the entire case.
. In general, Mother Hubbard clauses recite that "all relief not expressly granted is herein denied.” Mafrige, 866 S.W.2d at 590 n. 1.