Sara Sanchez and Dimas Castro v. F & M Properties

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 22, 2023
• Docket: 05-23-00794-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 22, 2023

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00794-CV

SARA SANCHEZ AND DIMAS CASTRO, Appellants V. F&M PROPERTIES, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-00788-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III Appellants appeal from the trial court’s April 20, 2023 amended judgment.

The judgment provided appellants an opportunity to seek injunctive relief in the

district court. It also provided that in the event injunctive relief is either not sought

or the request denied, a further hearing would be held to determine the amount of

attorney’s fees. Because the judgment left the issue of attorney’s fees to be

determined, we questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal and directed appellants

to file a letter brief addressing our concern. 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)).

In their letter brief, appellants assert that the judgment became retroactively

final because no injunctive relief was granted. Alternatively and, without citing any

authority for doing so, they ask that this appeal continue as an interlocutory appeal.

Because the judgment leaves the matter of attorney’s fees to be determined, it

is not definite. See Hinde, 701 S.W.2d at 639; Paxton v. Simmons, 640 S.W.3d 588,

598 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022, no pet.). Moreover, there is no statutory authority for

an interlocutory appeal of the order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §

51.014(a) (listing appealable interlocutory orders). Thus, we dismiss the appeal for

want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

/Bill Pedersen, III// 220794f.p05 BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE

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

SARA SANCHEZ AND DIMAS On Appeal from the County Court at CASTRO, Appellants Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-00788- No. 05-23-00794-CV V. A. Opinion delivered by Justice F&M PROPERTIES, Appellee Pedersen, III. Justices Partida- Kipness and Garcia participating.

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

It is ORDERED that appellee F&M PROPERTIES recover its costs of this appeal from appellants SARA SANCHEZ AND DIMAS CASTRO.

Judgment entered this 22nd day of December, 2023.

–3–