Michelle Y. Jackson v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust Asset Holdings NPL3, by Caliber Home Loans, Inc., Formerly Known as Vericrest Financial, Inc. as Its Attorney-In-Fact

Opinion issued September 29, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-16-00559-CV
———————————
MICHELLE Y. JACKSON, Appellant
V.
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR VERICREST OPPORTUNITY
LOAN TRUST ASSET HOLDINGS NPL3, BY CALIBER HOME LOANS,
INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS VERICREST FINANCIAL, INC. AS ITS
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, Appellee
On Appeal from the 400th District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 13-DCV-207631
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Michelle Y. Jackson, proceeding pro se, attempted to appeal from
the trial court’s interlocutory judgment, which granted appellee’s motion for
interlocutory default and summary judgment in this foreclosure action. The
appellee, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust
Asset Holdings NPL3, by Caliber Home Loans, Inc., formerly known as Vericrest
Financial, Inc. as its Attorney-in-Fact (“U.S. Bank Trust”), filed a motion to dismiss
this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We agree with appellee, grant the motion, and
dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Generally, this Court has civil appellate jurisdiction over final judgments or
interlocutory orders specifically authorized as appealable by statute. See TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 51.012, 51.014(a)(1)–(12) (West Supp. 2016); CMH
Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) (“Unless a statute authorizes an
interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally only have jurisdiction over appeals
from final judgments.”). “A judgment is final ‘if and only if either it actually
disposes of all claims and parties then before the court, regardless of its language, or
it states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment as to all claims and all
parties.’” In re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 256, 259 (Tex. 2014) (quoting, inter
alia, Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192–93 (Tex. 2001)).
On August 30, 2016, appellee U.S. Bank Trust filed this motion to dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction, contending that the June 24, 2016 interlocutory
judgment was a non-appealable interlocutory order. U.S. Bank Trust asserts that the
interlocutory judgment only granted it partial summary judgment because, among
other things, the judgment stated that it was not final, and it did not dispose of all
2
parties and claims because a third party, the Unknown Heirs of U.L. Deary, are
represented by an attorney ad litem who has filed an answer, but no judgment has
been sought against them at this time. More than ten days has passed and appellant
has not filed a response to appellee’s motion to dismiss. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a).
The trial court’s June 24, 2016 interlocutory judgment granting the appellee
U.S. Bank Trust’s motion for interlocutory default and summary judgment was not
a final judgment because it explicitly stated that “[o]nce this Judgment becomes final
it will serve as an Order authorizing [U.S. Bank Trust] to foreclose its lien. . . .”
Also, this interlocutory judgment does not fit under any of the categories of
appealable interlocutory orders. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.
§ 51.014(a)(1)–(12) (listing appealable interlocutory orders). Thus, we must dismiss
this appeal for want of jurisdiction because this interlocutory judgment was a partial
summary judgment that did not dispose of all claims and all parties and was not an
appealable interlocutory order. See CMH Homes, 340 S.W.3d at 447.
Conclusion
Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending
motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Brown.
3