Arlene Bunch and Rick Toledo as Conservator for Darlene Toledo Magner v. Darrell W. Goen and Alice C. Goen, Trustees of the Goen Family Trust Dated April 13, 2006; Robert C. Dean and Teresa K. Dean, Trustees of the Dean Family Trust Dated September 6, 2006; Chester A. Hipple and Cynthia A. Hipple, as TTEE U/D/T 1/23/07 and Delbert M. Goen, Trustee of the Delbert M. Goen Living Trust Dated August 16, 2006, Each as to Undivided 25% Interest

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 16, 2025
• Docket: 03-25-00614-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00614-CV

Arlene Bunch and Rick Toledo as Conservator for Darlene Toledo Magner, Appellants

v.

Darrell W. Goen and Alice C. Goen, Trustees of the Goen Family Trust Dated April 13, 2006; Robert C. Dean and Teresa K. Dean, Trustees of the Dean Family Trust Dated September 6, 2006; Chester A. Hipple and Cynthia A. Hipple, as TTEE U/D/T 1/23/07 and Delbert M. Goen, Trustee of the Delbert M. Goen Living Trust Dated August 16, 2006, Each as to Undivided 25% Interest, Appellees

FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. C2024-1920D, THE HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This Court is obligated to determine, sua sponte, whether we lack jurisdiction

over an appeal. Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 624 (Tex. 2012).

Generally, unless the Legislature confers jurisdiction by statute, we do not have jurisdiction over

an interlocutory appeal. Sabre Travel Int’l, Ltd. v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, 567 S.W.3d 725, 736

(Tex. 2019). Absent a conventional trial on the merits, a judgment “is final for purposes of

appeal 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.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192–93 (Tex. 2001). The trial court’s July 17, 2025 summary judgment, from which appellants seek

review, does neither. The judgment does not contain any language indicating its finality and

expressly leaves the amount of attorney’s fees and court costs to be determined at a later date and

“pursuant to an appropriate Motion.” “A judgment that awards an unascertainable amount is

interlocutory.” Wright v. Liming, 702 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2024,

no pet.). Because the trial court’s order awards an undiscernible amount of attorney’s fees and

contains no indicia of its finality, we conclude that it is not final. See id.; see also Connect MGA

LLC v. Waldrop, No. 02-22-00259-CV, 2023 WL 109736, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

Jan. 5, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (order that “contemplate[d] future action by the trial court,”

namely, “determining the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded,” was interlocutory); Spillman

v. Las Colinas Ass’n, No. 05-22-00005-CV, 2022 WL 999942, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas

Apr. 4, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same).

On November 3, 2025, we notified the parties of this jurisdictional defect. We

requested that appellants respond to this notice by November 13, 2025, and informed them that

the failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellants have not

responded. On December 11, 2025, the Clerk of this Court communicated with the trial court

clerk and confirmed that no order has been issued in the underlying matter that resolves the issue

of attorney’s fees. See In re A.C.T.M., 682 S.W.3d 234, 235 n.2 (Tex. 2023) (per curiam) (citing

Tex. R. App. P. 34.5). Because there is no final order before us, we dismiss this appeal for want

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 192–93.

2 __________________________________________ Maggie Ellis, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump and Ellis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: December 16, 2025