Randy Bond v. Donley County Commissioners Court, John Howard, Mark White, Daniel Ford, Neil Koetting, and Dan Sawyer ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-24-00281-CV
RANDY BOND, APPELLANT
V.
DONLEY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, JOHN HOWARD, MARK WHITE,
DANIEL FORD, NEIL KOETTING, AND DAN SAWYER, APPELLEES
On Appeal from the 100th District Court
Donley County, Texas
Trial Court No. DCV-23-07803, Honorable Dale A. Rabe, Presiding
October 23, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, Randy Bond, appeals from the trial court’s Order Granting Respondents’
Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Relator’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
As there is no final judgment in this case and the summary judgment order is not
immediately appealable, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
In 2023, Bond filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the trial court requesting an
order compelling Appellees “. . . to set a reasonable salary for the Donley County
Constable for Precincts 3 & 4,” along with an award for attorney’s fees. Appellees
answered, also requesting court costs and attorney’s fees. Both parties subsequently
moved for summary judgment. On July 29, 2024, the trial court signed an order granting
Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and denying Bond’s competing motion. The
summary judgment order provides that Appellees’ “request for an award of costs and
reasonable attorneys’ fees shall remain pending on the Court’s docket for future
disposition.” Bond appealed.
Our jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final judgments or from interlocutory
orders made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39
S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998) (per
curiam). “[W]hen there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or
judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending
claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all
claims and all parties.” Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205–06.
In this case, the trial court’s summary judgment order does not contain any finality
language and does not resolve Appellees’ claim for attorney’s fees. See Lehmann, 39
S.W.3d at 205-06; McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam)
(holding that a summary judgment order that “does not appear final on its face” and fails
to “dispose of defendants’ claim for attorney fees” is not a final, appealable judgment).
Consequently, the trial court’s summary judgment order is interlocutory; and, we have
found no statutory authority permitting its appeal.
2
By letter of September 26, 2024, we informed the parties that it appeared we
lacked jurisdiction over this appeal. We directed Bond to demonstrate grounds for
continuing the appeal by October 7, 2024, or we would dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. To date, Bond has not responded to our letter.
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that there is no final judgment or
appealable order presented for review. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
Per Curiam
3