Laura Ichon v. Michael Terry Tatum as President of Chamonix Owners' Association, Inc. Chamonix Owners' Association, Inc. Watson-Beverly, Inc., D/B/A Certified Management of Austin And Resa M. Watson, Individually and as President of Watson-Beverly, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 18, 1994
• Docket: 03-94-00051-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

CV4-051 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN



NO. 3-94-051-CV

LAURA ICHON,

APPELLANT

vs.

MICHAEL TERRY TATUM AS PRESIDENT OF CHAMONIX OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.; CHAMONIX OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.; WATSON-BEVERLY, INC., D/B/A CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT OF AUSTIN; AND RESA M. WATSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF WATSON-BEVERLY, INC.,

APPELLEES

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 92-09947, HONORABLE PAUL R. DAVIS, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

Appellant Laura Ichon seeks to appeal from a trial-court judgment dismissing her cause. This cause involved multiple defendants, divided into two groups: the "Chamonix defendants" and the "Powell defendants." The trial court rendered the judgment dismissing the cause pursuant to a motion filed only by the Chamonix defendants. Their motion requested the rendition of judgment on an alleged settlement agreement. ⁽¹⁾ The judgment refers to the settlement agreement and amounts of money to be paid that arose from the settlement agreement in which all parties, including the Powells, participated. The judgment, however, does not appear to dispose of the Powell defendants and no other action disposed of the Powell defendants. ⁽²⁾ See Higginbotham v. Bemis Co., Inc., 722 S.W.2d 511, 512 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1986, no writ). A judgment that does not dispose of all parties is interlocutory and any appeal premature. See Tex. R. App. P. 58(b); North E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966).

By order of April 6, 1994, we requested a supplemental transcript to show that the judgment was final and abated the appeal until April 18, 1994. Appellant's motion for extension of time to file the supplemental record was granted until April 21, 1994. To date, we have not received a supplemental transcript containing a final judgment. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 60(a)(2).

We also dismiss appellant's "Amended Motion for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Record, filed April 26, 1994, appellees' "Motion for Affirmance and Judgment for Costs and Response to Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Record" filed April 20, 1994, and appellees' "Motion for Affirmance and Judgment for Costs and Response to Appellant's Amended Motion for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Record," filed April 29, 1994.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and Jones

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 18, 1994

Do Not Publish

1. ¹  The existence of a settlement agreement on which judgment could be rendered is an issue in the trial-court cause.

2. ²  For example, defendant Terry Tatum was non-suited in his individual capacity.