Cody Howard v. Lacy Kimball, Individually and D/B/A Lacy Kimball Law

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 11, 2026
• Docket: 07-24-00388-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00388-CV

CODY HOWARD, APPELLANT

V.

LACY KIMBALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A LACY KIMBALL LAW, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 43rd District Court Parker County, Texas1 Trial Court No. CV24-0589, Honorable Craig Towson, Presiding

March 11, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Cody Howard, appeals from an order on a plea to the jurisdiction filed

by Appellee, Lacy Kimball, Individually and d/b/a Lacy Kimball Law. Because there is no

final, appealable judgment, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

1 This appeal was originally filed in the Second Court of Appeals and was transferred to this Court

by a docket-equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001. In the event of any conflict, we apply the transferor court’s case law. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. BACKGROUND

Howard and CMH Group, LLC sued Kimball for legal malpractice. Kimball

answered and filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss under Rule 91a of

the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. On June 24, 2024, the trial court signed an order

that purported to overrule the plea but also stated the suit was “dismissed.” Howard

appealed.

On January 15, 2025, we abated the appeal and remanded the cause to the trial

court for clarification of whether the trial court intended to render a final judgment. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 27.2. On remand, the trial court signed amended orders that became a

part of a supplemental clerk’s record. The orders state Kimball’s motions to dismiss and

plea to the jurisdiction are denied in all respects “and this matter shall continue to trial.”

Kimball did not file a notice of appeal from any order denying her requested relief.

ANALYSIS

Our jurisdiction generally extends only to final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When an order is signed without a conventional

trial on the merits, it is not considered a final judgment unless it actually disposes of every

pending claim and party or it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all

claims and parties. Id. at 205.

The amended orders now in the record make clear that the trial court intended to

retain jurisdiction and did not intend rendition of a final judgment. The trial court directed

that the matter shall continue to trial. Because there is no final judgment, we lack

jurisdiction over this appeal. 2 CONCLUSION

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Nothing in this dismissal order

should be construed as a comment on the merits of any matters that may remain pending

in the trial court.

Per Curiam