Mia Wafer and All Occupants v. Hilltop Residential

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 29, 2022
• Docket: 05-22-00546-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 29, 2022

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00546-CV

MIA WAFER, Appellant V. HILLTOP RESIDENTIAL, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-00777-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Smith Opinion by Chief Justice Burns After reviewing the clerk’s record, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over

this appeal because the judgment is not definite in its award of appellate attorney’s

fees. We directed appellant to file a letter brief addressing the Court’s concern with

an opportunity for appellee to respond.

Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a judgment that is final and

definite. See Hinde v. Hinde, 701 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Tex. 1985) (per curiam). A

judgment is final if it disposes of all parties and issues; it is definite if it defines the

parties’ rights or “provide[s] a definite means of ascertaining [the parties’] rights”

such that “ministerial officers can carry the judgment to execution without ascertainment of facts” not stated in the judgment. Id. (quoting Steed v. State, 183

S.W.2d 458, 460 (Tex. 1944)).

The trial court’s judgment in the underlying forcible detainer action awards to

appellee possession of the property, attorney’s fees through trial in the amount of

$1,000 and “in the event of an unsuccessful appeal by [appellant], any reasonable

and necessary amounts.” The award of appellate attorney’s fees is not definite such

that ministerial officers could carry the judgment to execution without ascertainment

of facts not stated in the judgment. See id. In her letter brief, appellant addresses

the timeliness of the appeal which the Court does not dispute. She fails to address

the indefinite award of appellate attorney’s fees.

Because the judgment does not set the amount of appellate attorney’s fees

awarded in the event of an unsuccessful appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).

/Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

220546F.P05

–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

MIA WAFER, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-22-00546-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-00777- D. HILLTOP RESIDENTIAL, Appellee Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Smith participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered August 29, 2022

–3–