Helen Mayfield v. Richard Worthen

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 24, 2025
• Docket: 01-23-00680-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 24, 2025.

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00680-CR ——————————— HELEN MAYFIELD, Appelant V. RICHARD WORTHEN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 157th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2019-70163

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Helen Mayfield brings a restricted appeal challenging a summary

judgment rendered against her in a lawsuit filed by Appellee Richard Worthen.

Mayfield sued Appellee Richard Worthen for breach of contract and quantum

meruit. Worthen answered and asserted affirmative defenses to Mayfield’s claims. He also asserted counterclaims against Mayfield for violations of the Deceptive

Trade Practices Act, statutory fraud, common law fraud, and fraudulent inducement.

Worthen filed a hybrid motion for traditional and no-evidence summary

judgment in which he moved for no-evidence summary judgment on Mayfield’s

claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit and traditional summary judgment

on his affirmative defenses to Mayfield’s claims. On February 14, 2023, the trial

court signed an “Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,” stating in

its entirety: “Defendant Worthen’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”

Mayfield filed this restricted appeal from the trial court’s February 14, 2023 order.

We generally have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments unless

a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d

444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); see also, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014

(authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). A judgment issued without

a conventional trial is final for appeal only if it actually disposes of all claims and

parties then before the court, regardless of its language, or 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, 200 (Tex. 2001). We lack jurisdiction over

appeals of summary judgment orders that do not dispose of all claims against all

parties or “contain finality language that could turn an otherwise interlocutory order

into a final judgment.” See Falkenhorst v. Metro. Escrow & Title, LLC, No. 01-22-

2 00370-CV, 2023 WL 2576452, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 21,

2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal from order granting summary judgment

that neither disposed of all parties and claims nor contained finality language).

There is no statutory authority for judicial review of an interlocutory order by

restricted appeal. See Huett v. Lloyd, No. 01-13-00420-CV, 2014 WL 1803236, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 6, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing

restricted appeal of interlocutory order for lack of jurisdiction); see also Federated

Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Davenport, 85 S.W.3d 837, 838–39 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002,

no pet.) (dismissing restricted appeal of interlocutory order for lack of jurisdiction).

On May 22, 2025, this Court informed Mayfield that it appeared we lacked

jurisdiction over her restricted appeal because the order from which she appeals

appears to be interlocutory in nature. We indicated that unless she filed a

supplemental clerk’s record with documents establishing that all claims against all

parties have been resolved in the underlying litigation, including Worthen’s

counterclaims against Mayfield, and that the summary judgment order from which

she appeals is a final judgment, or filed a response demonstrating by citation to the

law why this Court had jurisdiction over her appeal, this Court would dismiss the

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Mayfield responded to our notice but

did not establish that the order from which she appeals is a final judgment. We thus

lack jurisdiction over her restricted appeal.

3 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending

motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Gunn.