Matilde Hernandez D/B/A Room by Room Home Renovations v. Diana Schaumburg

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: February 10, 2026
• Docket: 01-25-01052-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued February 10, 2026.

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-01052-CV ——————————— MATILDE HERNANDEZ D/B/A ROOM BY ROOM HOME RENOVATIONS, Appellant V. DIANA SCHAUMBURG, Appellee

On Appeal from the 125th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2025-43036

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 15, 2025, appellant Matilde Hernandez, doing business as

Room by Room Home Renovations, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from

a December 10, 2025 order removing an invalid or unenforceable lien. On January 22, 2026, we notified appellant that it did not appear that the

record contains a final judgment. Appellee Diana Schaumburg also moved to dismiss

the appeal arguing that the appealed order is non-final. Appellant responded by

conceding the order was non-final but asked this Court to abate the appeal, rather

than dismiss it.

Generally, a Texas appellate court has jurisdiction to consider only an appeal

from a final judgment. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.

2001); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1 (appellate timetable runs from the date the

judgment or order is signed). The clerk’s record must include a copy of the court’s

judgment or other order that is being appealed. T EX. R. APP. P. 34.5. To be final, a

judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in a case. N.E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v.

Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966).

The trial court’s December 105 order declared the lien affidavit invalid and

directed the County Clerk to record the order under Texas Property Code § 53.160.

But the December 10 order contains no finality language and does not purport to

dispose of the entire case. As appellant concedes, the underlying action remains

pending in the 125th District Court in Harris County, with trial scheduled and no

final judgment issued.

Because the claims asserted by appellant were not finally adjudicated by the

order being appealed, there is no final judgment or other appealable order for us to

2 consider. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 192–93, 205; see also V.I.P. Royal Palace,

LLC v. Hobby Event Ctr. LLC, No. 01-18-00621-CV, 2020 WL 3579563, at *4 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 2, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Because the trial

court’s . . . order does not actually dispose of all claims and all parties, it is

interlocutory and not final. . . .”).

Finally, dismissal—not abatement—is appropriate. The order was not

intended to be final, as appellant concedes, and it cannot be made final by a

perfunctory or ministerial act because a trial on the merits remains scheduled.

Compare Iacono v. Lyons, 6 S.W.3d 715, 716 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999,

no pet.) (abatement appropriate to sign an order granting nonsuit), with Garcia v.

Comm’rs Court of Cameron Cnty., 101 S.W.3d 778, 785–86 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi 2003, no pet.) (abatement not appropriate where trial court must resolve

significant issues).

Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3(a). We grant appellee’s motion to dismiss and dismiss any other

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Johnson.