Cornelius Joe Ergonis and Linda Ergonis v. Paul Wood Inspection Group, Inc., Caleb Wood, and James Alan Peterson ( 2024 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-24-00359-CV
___________________________
CORNELIUS JOE ERGONIS AND LINDA ERGONIS, Appellants
V.
PAUL WOOD INSPECTION GROUP, INC., CALEB WOOD, AND JAMES ALAN
PETERSON, Appellees
On Appeal from the 362nd District Court
Denton County, Texas
Trial Court No. 19-5640-362
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants Cornelius Joe Ergonis and Linda Ann Ergonis sued William
Thomas Sultzbaugh; Sharon Elliott Sultzbaugh a/k/a Sharon Carr; Lighthouse
Engineering, LLC; Michael Gandy, P.E.; Ebby Halliday Real Estate, Inc.; Kathy
Gibson; Paul Wood Inspection Group, Inc.; Caleb Wood; and James Alan Peterson.
Appellants filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s “Final Judgment as to
Defendants Paul Wood Inspection Group, Inc., Caleb Wood, and James [Alan]
Peterson.” The judgment states that it is “[f]inal and disposes of all claims . . . against
Defendants Paul Wood Inspection Group, Inc., Caleb Wood[,] and James [Alan]
Peterson.” The judgment does not, however, address claims against any other
defendant or include language indicating that it is a final judgment. See In re Elizondo,
544 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding).
We have jurisdiction to consider appeals only from final judgments and from
certain interlocutory orders made immediately appealable 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). A final judgment is one that actually disposes of every pending claim
and party or that “clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims
and all parties.” See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205. Unless a statutory exception applies,
an order that does not dispose of all pending parties and claims remains interlocutory
and unappealable until the trial court signs a final judgment. See id.
2
The trial court’s judgment includes finality language as to some defendants:
“this [j]udgment is [f]inal and disposes of all claims . . . against Defendants Paul Wood
Inspection Group, Inc., Caleb Wood[,] and James [Alan] Peterson.” While it addresses
the claims against these three defendants, it does not address the claims against the
remaining defendants, nor does it recite that it disposes of all remaining parties and
claims. See Shetewy v. Mediation Inst. of N. Tex., LLC, 624 S.W.3d 285, 288 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 2021, no pet.) (noting that an order’s title does not determine whether the
order is a final judgment); Wright v. Payne, No. 02-19-00147-CV, 2019 WL 6003243, at
*2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 14, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that using the
words “final” or “appealable” in an order does not make it final without a clear
indication that the trial court intended the order to dispose of the entire case).
After we received Appellants’ notice of appeal, we notified Appellants that the
trial court’s judgment did not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable
interlocutory order. We informed Appellants that unless we received a response
showing grounds for continuing the appeal, it may be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Appellants filed a response requesting
that we abate the appeal “to allow Appellants to promptly petition the trial court to
affect such final appealable judgments or orders.”
Noting that Appellants’ notice of appeal is premature, we permitted the parties
a reasonable time to correct the defect in the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3,
44.4(a)(2). We notified the parties that they had twenty days to provide this court with
3
a signed copy of the order that Appellants seek to appeal. We warned Appellants that
the failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.
42.3(a), 43.2(f).
On the twentieth day, Appellants filed a letter requesting an extension of time
to correct the defect in the record. We have not received a signed copy of the final
order or judgment that Appellants seek to appeal.
Because the judgment from which Appellants attempt to appeal is neither a
final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want
of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
Per Curiam
Delivered: October 31, 2024
4