Isabelle Edwards v. KFS Lewisville, LLC

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: April 23, 2026
• Docket: 02-25-00422-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00422-CV ___________________________

ISABELLE EDWARDS, Appellant

V.

KFS LEWISVILLE, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. CV-2025-02331-JP

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Isabelle Edwards, acting pro se, attempts to appeal from the trial

court’s August 5, 2025 order granting Appellee KFS Lewisville LLC’s motion to

dismiss and awarding KFS Lewisville attorneys’ fees pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil

Procedure 91a. The order expressly disposes of Edwards’s claim but also clearly

states that the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded has not yet been determined.

We may consider appeals only from final judgments or from interlocutory

orders made immediately appealable by statute. Bonsmara Nat. Beef Co. v. Hart of Tex.

Cattle Feeders, LLC, 603 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. 2020). When, as here, a judgment is

rendered without a conventional trial on the merits, the judgment “is not final unless

(1) it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or (2) it clearly and

unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties” even though the

statement was included in error and the order “should have been interlocutory.” In re

Guardianship of Jones, 629 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. 2021); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.,

39 S.W.3d 191, 200, 205 (Tex. 2001).

The trial court’s August 5, 2025 order does neither. In fact, it does just the

opposite by expressly stating that the attorneys’ fees amount has not yet been

determined and that “[t]his is not a final order subject to immediate appellate review.”

Additionally, an interlocutory order granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss is not

appealable. Hollis v. ProPath Assocs., PLLC, No. 02-19-00167-CV, 2019 WL 3024472,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 11, 2019, no pet.); see DRC Constr. v. Pickle, No. 01-

2 20-00576-CV, 2022 WL 479918, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 17, 2022,

no pet.) (“No statutory or other authority allows for an interlocutory appeal from an

order that grants a Rule 91a motion to dismiss but does not dispose of all pending

claims.”).

We notified Edwards that we questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal

because the order does not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable

interlocutory order. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. We informed her that this appeal could

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless by March 16, 2026, she filed a response

showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. We have

received no response.

Because the order from which Edwards attempts to appeal is neither a final

judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

Delivered: April 23, 2026