Sara Sanchez and Dimas Castro v. F & M Properties ( 2023 )

DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 22, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-00794-CV
SARA SANCHEZ AND DIMAS CASTRO, Appellants
V.
F&M PROPERTIES, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-00788-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
Appellants appeal from the trial court’s April 20, 2023 amended judgment.
The judgment provided appellants an opportunity to seek injunctive relief in the
district court. It also provided that in the event injunctive relief is either not sought
or the request denied, a further hearing would be held to determine the amount of
attorney’s fees. Because the judgment left the issue of attorney’s fees to be
determined, we questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal and directed appellants
to file a letter brief addressing our concern.
Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a judgment that is final and
definite. See Hinde v. Hinde, 701 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Tex. 1985) (per curiam). A
judgment is final if it disposes of all parties and issues; it is definite if it defines the
parties’ rights or “provide[s] a definite means of ascertaining [the parties’] rights”
such that “ministerial officers can carry the judgment to execution without
ascertainment of facts” not stated in the judgment. Id. (quoting Steed v. State, 183
S.W.2d 458, 460 (Tex. 1944)).
In their letter brief, appellants assert that the judgment became retroactively
final because no injunctive relief was granted. Alternatively and, without citing any
authority for doing so, they ask that this appeal continue as an interlocutory appeal.
Because the judgment leaves the matter of attorney’s fees to be determined, it
is not definite. See Hinde, 701 S.W.2d at 639; Paxton v. Simmons, 640 S.W.3d 588,
598 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022, no pet.). Moreover, there is no statutory authority for
an interlocutory appeal of the order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §
51.014(a) (listing appealable interlocutory orders). Thus, we dismiss the appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
/Bill Pedersen, III//
220794f.p05 BILL PEDERSEN, III
JUSTICE
–2–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
SARA SANCHEZ AND DIMAS On Appeal from the County Court at
CASTRO, Appellants Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-00788-
No. 05-23-00794-CV V. A.
Opinion delivered by Justice
F&M PROPERTIES, Appellee Pedersen, III. Justices Partida-
Kipness and Garcia participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellee F&M PROPERTIES recover its costs of this
appeal from appellants SARA SANCHEZ AND DIMAS CASTRO.
Judgment entered this 22nd day of December, 2023.
–3–