Behrooz Khademazad v. Thora Khademazad

DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 3, 2019
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00124-CV
BEHROOZ KHADEMAZAD, Appellant
V.
THORA KHADEMAZAD, Appellee
On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-21321
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Nowell
Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
Appellant and appellee both sought enforcement of their divorce decree. Appellant appeals
from the trial court’s enforcement order entered following a bench trial. The order granted
appellee’s petition in its entirety and granted in part and abated in part appellant’s counter-petition.
We questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal as the order did not appear to be final. At the
Court’s request, the parties filed letter briefs addressing the jurisdictional issue.
Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. See
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is one that
disposes of all pending parties and claims. Id. We are mindful that a judgment, not intrinsically
interlocutory in character, rendered following a bench trial, is presumed final. See N.E. Indep.
Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 897-98 (Tex. 1966). “If there is any doubt as to the
judgment’s finality, then ‘[f]inality must be resolved by a determination of the intention of the
court [as] gathered from the language of the decree and the record as a whole, aided on occasion
by the conduct of the parties.’” See Vaughn v. Drennon, 324 S.W.3d 560, 563 (Tex. 2010) (per
curiam) (quoting Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 203).
In the divorce decree, the trial court divided certain real property owned by the parties,
including The Terraces, awarding each fifty percent in the net proceeds from the sale of the
properties and holding each responsible for the debts due or to become due on those properties.
The Terraces has not yet been sold. In its counter-petition, appellant sought, among other things,
reimbursement for amounts he had paid related to the debts on The Terraces. In its order, the trial
court abated appellant’s debt-related claims as “not yet ripe.”
Appellee agrees that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant, however,
asserts that the trial court effectively denied the abated claims by providing in the order that a party
paying a portion of the obligations on the property will be entitled to reimbursement from the net
proceeds from the sale. The divorce decree, however, did not provide for reimbursement. Rather,
it provided that each party was responsible for the debts on The Terraces “due or to become due.”
We disagree that the reimbursement provision overcomes the trial court’s express language abating
these claims. Based on the abatement language in the order, we conclude the trial court did not
intend the order to be final. Under these circumstances, the Aldridge presumption of finality does
not apply. See Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d at 897-98.
The parties have filed a joint motion to abate the appeal. They ask that we treat this appeal
as premature. They state in their motion that they “anticipate” that The Terraces will either be sold
or foreclosed upon and such sale will either moot or ripen the issues in this appeal. However,
following the sale of The Terraces, the parties will still need to submit a final accounting of the
–2–
obligations and payments related to both that property and the homestead. Because the timeline
for a final resolution is open-ended, the Court denies the parties joint motion to abate the appeal.
The trial court’s order on appeal does not finally resolve all claims asserted in the petition
and counter-petition for enforcement. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
/Robert D. Burns, III/
ROBERT D. BURNS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE
190124F.P05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
BEHROOZ KHADEMAZAD, Appellant On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-19-00124-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-21321.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns.
THORA KHADEMAZAD, Appellee Justices Whitehill and Nowell participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellee THORA KHADEMAZAD recover her costs of this appeal
from appellant BEHROOZ KHADEMAZAD.
Judgment entered July 3, 2019
–4–