Tom Johns v. the Fox Hall, Ltd AKA Fox Hall Apartments, Fox Hall Apartments, LLC and Fox Hall, Ltd
Docket: 01-22-00403-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; November 7, 2022; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas issued an opinion on November 8, 2022, regarding the appeal of Tom Johns against The Fox Hall, Ltd. The trial court had granted a summary judgment on May 5, 2022, which dismissed all of Johns's claims against Fox Hall with prejudice, but did not address Fox Hall's pending counterclaim against Johns. Texas appellate courts require a final judgment to have jurisdiction over an appeal, which is defined as an order that disposes of all claims and parties or explicitly states it is a final judgment. Since the summary judgment did not resolve the counterclaim or include clear finality language, it was deemed interlocutory and not appealable. The court notified the parties of the potential dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and Johns subsequently filed a motion to sever the counterclaim to render the summary judgment final. However, only the trial court can grant a severance, and thus the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to do so. Additionally, Johns filed a motion to invoke permissive appeal under Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(d), but failed to follow required procedures, leading the court to affirm its lack of jurisdiction over this motion as well. In Hale v. Rising S Co. LLC, the Texas Court of Appeals determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order because the appellant did not follow necessary procedures for a permissive appeal under subsection 51.014(d). The court referenced Progressive Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dowdy, which similarly dismissed an appeal due to the appellant's failure to file within the required 15 days after the signing of the order, as mandated by Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.3(c) and Civil Practice and Remedies Code subsection 51.014(f). The court noted that the summary-judgment order was not a final judgment and that no statutory authority permitted interlocutory appeals of such orders, referencing Young v. Luxury Direct Ltd. Co. and Gonzales to support its conclusion. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and all related motions, including those to sever and invoke subsection 51.014(d), as moot. The ruling was issued per curiam by a panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Hightower.