PETER BETTI v. MOLLY MOORE BETTI (2010)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Morris

This is an appeal from a May 1, 2010 letter ruling concerning the parties' community and separate estates.   Appellant has filed an unopposed motion asking us to determine whether we have jurisdiction over the appeal and to dismiss the appeal if we do not.   We grant appellant's motion and dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal.

Background

The letter ruling at issue followed a four-day trial and a later mediation.   It included nine separate orders on issues ranging from the parties' marital residence to attorney's fees, but did not include any language indicating whether it disposed of all issues before the court.   Uncertain whether the ruling was intended to be a final judgment, appellant moved to clarify or, in the alternative, for a new trial.   The court signed an order on appellant's motion on July 14, following a hearing.   The order recited the letter ruling was not intended as a final judgment and, to the extent the ruling could be construed as a final judgment, it was vacated.   A month later, on August 12, the court sent a letter to the parties regarding the July 14 hearing and referencing “post judgment issues” raised by appellant at that hearing.   Concerned the reference to “post judgment issues” indicated a final judgment existed and the appellate time frame had begun, appellant filed this appeal.   Appellee then cross-appealed for the same reasons.

Discussion

Subject to a few mostly statutory exceptions not applicable here, we only have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments, that is, judgments that dispose of all pending parties and claims in the record.   See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.2001);  Beckham Grp., P.C. v. Snyder, 315 S.W.3d 244, 245 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.).   Based on the information before us, we conclude the letter ruling is not a final judgment.   As stated, the trial court clarified in its July 14 order that the letter ruling was not intended as a final judgment.   Nothing in the documents presented to us suggests otherwise nor do the parties assert otherwise.   Because no final judgment exists, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal and cross-appeal and dismiss both.  Tex.R.App. P. 42.1(a).

101020F.P05

JOSEPH B. MORRIS JUSTICE