Belinda A. Zanfardino v. Hugh L. Jeffus, Jr., Marshall Turner Jeffus, and Nanalee May Jeffus Nichols

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 10, 2002
Docket06-02-00077-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Belinda A. Zanfardino v. Hugh L. Jeffus, Jr., Marshall Turner Jeffus, and Nanalee May Jeffus Nichols (Belinda A. Zanfardino v. Hugh L. Jeffus, Jr., Marshall Turner Jeffus, and Nanalee May Jeffus Nichols) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Belinda A. Zanfardino v. Hugh L. Jeffus, Jr., Marshall Turner Jeffus, and Nanalee May Jeffus Nichols, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion



In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana



______________________________


No. 06-02-00077-CV
______________________________


BELINDA A. ZANFARDINO, Appellant


V.


HUGH L. JEFFUS, JR., MARSHALL TURNER JEFFUS, AND
NANALEE MAY JEFFUS NICHOLS, Appellees





On Appeal from the 6th Judicial District Court
Lamar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 68707





Before Morriss, C.J., Grant and Ross, JJ.
Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss


O P I N I O N


Belinda A. Zanfardino appeals the summary judgment granted in favor of Hugh L. Jeffus, Jr., Marshall Turner Jeffus, and Nanalee May Jeffus Nichols (collectively, Appellees). The record shows Appellees sued Zanfardino, alleging she made an invalid claim of ownership in some property Appellees alleged they owned. Appellees requested a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, and attorney's fees and costs. The trial court granted a partial summary judgment quieting title of the property in Appellees. That summary judgment does not address Appellees' claims for monetary damages or attorney's fees and costs.

This Court has jurisdiction only of final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001). An order that does not finally dispose of all remaining parties and claims is not a final order. Id. at 200. If the intent to dispose of the case is not unequivocally expressed in the language of the order itself, then the order is not final. Id. Here the trial court's order does not purport to be a final judgment and does not dispose of some of the plaintiffs' claims for relief.

Because the summary judgment does not address all of Appellees' claims, it is not a final judgment. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, we notified Zanfardino of this defect in our jurisdiction, and she has indicated her agreement with our assessment.



The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.



Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice



Date Submitted: July 9, 2002

Date Decided: July 10, 2002



Do Not Publish



Bailey C. Moseley

Justice



Date Submitted: May 23, 2007

Date Decided: May 24, 2007

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Belinda A. Zanfardino v. Hugh L. Jeffus, Jr., Marshall Turner Jeffus, and Nanalee May Jeffus Nichols, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belinda-a-zanfardino-v-hugh-l-jeffus-jr-marshall-t-texapp-2002.