Corey and Rochelle Smith v. Sean M. Walker A/K/A Sean M. Mathis ( 2023 )

DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 16, 2023
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-01280-CV
COREY SMITH AND ROCHELLE SMITH, Appellants
V.
SEAN M. WALKER AND MANINA RUTH MATHIS, Appellees
On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-04011
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein
Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
The Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal because there did not
appear to be a final judgment. Generally, this Court has jurisdiction over 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). We directed appellants to file a letter brief
addressing the Court’s concern. Appellant Corey Smith complied.
Appellants appeal from the trial court’s November 3, 2023 order addressing
appellees’ motion for summary judgment. This order merely recites that appellees’
traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment “should be
GRANTED.” To be final, a judgment must actually dispose of the cause with
decretal language. See In re Wilmington Tr., Nat'l Ass’n, 524 S.W.3d 790, 792
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (concluding that
although the order at issue stated that the motions in question should be granted, it
did not actually dispose of the cause because it did not include the decretal
language typically seen in a judgment). “An order that merely grants a motion for
judgment is in no sense a judgment itself. It adjudicates nothing.” Naaman v.
Grider, 126 S.W.3d 73, 74 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam). The appealed order here
adjudicates nothing. Rather, it merely states that appellees’ summary judgment
motion should be granted.
Although Mr. Smith filed a letter brief, nothing therein demonstrates this
Court’s jurisdiction over the appeal. Because the appealed order is not a final,
appealable judgment, and nothing before us reflects an appealable order or
judgment has been signed, 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
221280F.P05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
COREY SMITH AND ROCHELLE On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial
SMITH, Appellants District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-04011.
No. 05-22-01280-CV V. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein
SEAN M. WALKER AND MANINA participating.
RUTH MATHIS, Appellees
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellees SEAN M. WALKER AND MANINA
RUTH MATHIS recover their costs of this appeal from appellants COREY
SMITH AND ROCHELLE SMITH.
Judgment entered February 16, 2023
–3–