Barrow Shaver Resources Company LLC, Kathryn M. Dawson, and Michael Ray Hill v. NETX Acquisitions, LLC and Thomas C. Merritt, Trustee ( 2020 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-19-00105-CV
BARROW SHAVER RESOURCES COMPANY, LLC, KATHRYN M. DAWSON,
AND MICHAEL RAY HILL, Appellants
V.
NETX ACQUISITIONS, LLC, AND THOMAS C. MERRITT, TRUSTEE, Appellees
On Appeal from the 5th District Court
Cass County, Texas
Trial Court No. 19C090
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Barrow Shaver Resources Company, LLC, Kathryn M. Dawson, and Michael Ray Hill
(Appellants) have appealed the trial court’s November 8, 2019, summary judgment order. The
clerk’s record in the referenced matter was filed by this Court on January 7, 2020. On our review
of the record, we noted a potential defect in the Court’s jurisdiction over this appeal.
“[T]he general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken
only from a final judgment.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). “A
judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record
. . . .” Id. Generally, an interlocutory judgment becomes final when it merges into the final
judgment disposing of the entire case. See Roccaforte v. Jefferson Cty., 341 S.W.3d 919, 924 (Tex.
2011).
The trial court’s November 8, 2019, summary judgment order does not resolve all claims
and issues between the parties. More specifically, the plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney
fees was neither addressed by the parties in their respective summary judgment motions nor
resolved by the trial court in the summary judgment order. Under those circumstances, it does not
appear that the November 8, 2019, summary judgment order is a final, appealable order. See
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Debose, No. 01-08-00717-CV, 2009 WL 793851 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] Mar. 2, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Consequently, we are currently without jurisdiction
over this appeal.
By letter dated January 7, 2020, we notified Appellants of this potential defect in our
jurisdiction and afforded them the opportunity to show this Court how it had jurisdiction over the
2
appeal, notwithstanding the noted defect. We further informed Appellants that the failure to
respond by January 17, 2020, would result in dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellants did not file a response.
We find that the trial court’s November 8, 2019, order was not final and appealable.
Consequently, we are without jurisdiction over this appeal.
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: January 28, 2020
Date Decided: January 29, 2020
3