Jesse Ray Wilson v. Don Ritter, Jim York, Barry Boorstein, David Chan and Lucita Wilson ( 2004 )

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 9, 2004

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 9, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00688-CV

____________

JESSE RAY WILSON, Appellant

V.

DON RITTER, JIM YORK, BARRY BOORSTEIN, DAVID CHAN,

and LUCITA WILSON, Appellees

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 02-50231

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from orders granting motions for summary judgment signed April 9, 2003 and June 4, 2003, and an order of dismissal signed September 19, 2003.  The clerk=s record was filed July 28, 2003, and a supplemental clerk=s record was filed January 23, 2004.  The records indicate that there is no final judgment.  There is no order disposing of appellant=s claims against Lucita Wilson. 

Unless a statute specifically authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final judgments.  Cherokee Water Co. v. Ross, 698 S.W.2d 363, 365 (Tex. 1985).  A partial summary judgment is a decision on the merits unless set aside by the trial court.  Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892 S.W.2d 853, 855 (Tex. 1995).  It becomes final upon the disposition of the other issues of the case.  Id. If there is a dismissal, nonsuit or a severance of the remaining issues against Lucita Wilson, the partial summary judgments would become final.  See Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Lindsay, 787 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Tex. 1990). 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 27.2 provides as follows:

The appellate court may allow an appealed order that is not final to be modified so as to be made final and may allow the modified order and all proceedings relating to it to be included in a supplemental record.

Tex. R. App. P. 27.2.  Thus, this court has discretion to permit the parties to take the steps necessary make the orders being appealed final.

Accordingly, on July 29, 2004, we ordered the case abated and remanded to the trial court for a period of thirty days to permit the parties to obtain an order disposing of the claims against Lucita Wilson.  More than thirty days have elapsed and no supplemental clerk=s record containing an order disposing of the claims against Lucita Wilson has been filed in this court.  In addition, no request for an extension of the thirty-day abatement period has been requested.

Therefore, we must conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal in the absence of a final judgment disposing of all parties and claims. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed September 9, 2004.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Guzman.