SHEIK TEHUTI v. BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER ENGEL LLP MARY DAFFIN ROBERT FRAPPIER STEVE TURNER BRIAN ENGEL AND CHALISE ESTES (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice FitzGerald

Sheik Tehuti appealed the trial court's March 30, 2011 default judgment in favor of appellees.   The judgment on its face appeared to be interlocutory in that it did not dispose of appellees' claim for prejudgment interest, nor did it contain language indicating it was disposing of all claims and parties and was intended to be final.   See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex.2001).   Therefore, by letter dated June 27, 2011, the Court directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing our jurisdiction over the appeal.

Appellant responded with a brief that appears to address the merits of the default judgment rather than the jurisdictional issue.   The only reference that might be construed as directed to the jurisdictional question is appellant's statement that the “district court had ruled on a core issue important to the appeal.”   This, however, does not explain why the judgment is not interlocutory.   Appellees responded that the March 30, 2011 judgment is interlocutory and we do not have jurisdiction over the appeal.   We agree with appellees.

Appellate jurisdiction is never presumed.  Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d 542, 546 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh'g).   Unless the record affirmatively shows the propriety of appellate jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal.   See id.   Subject to a few exceptions not applicable here, we have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments—judgments that dispose of all pending parties and claims.   See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195;  Beckham Grp., P.C. v. Snyder, 315 S.W.3d 244, 245 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).

In this case, the trial court's March 30, 2011 judgment neither affirmatively disposes of appellees' claim for prejudgment interest nor contains language indicating that all claims and parties have been disposed of and the judgment is intended to be final.   See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 200.   Therefore, the judgment is not final.   Absent a final judgment, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal.   See id. at 195.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

110449F.P05

KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE