Background
Daphne Kanas sued parties involved in her 2021 home purchase after allegedly discovering undisclosed defects and hazards. Her claims against home inspector Carlos Garcia, his employer Superior Home Real Estate Inspections, LLC, and Superior’s owner Derrick Walls included allegations of negligence, fraud, breach of contract, fiduciary-duty violations, conspiracy, and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act violations.
The trial court granted Rule 91a dismissal motions filed by the defendants. Its order concerning Walls and Superior broadly dismissed all claims against them, but its order concerning Garcia expressly dismissed only negligence, breach-of-fiduciary-duty, and conspiracy claims. The court later severed the defendants into a separate case, awarded them attorney’s fees, and stated that its August 27, 2025 order was a “final judgment.” Kanas appealed the dismissals and fee awards.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Although the August 27 order called itself a final judgment, that phrase alone did not clearly and unequivocally dispose of every claim and party. The order contained no decretal language adjudicating Kanas’s substantive claims; it principally ordered severance and attorney’s fees.
The prior dismissal order involving Garcia also left claims unresolved. It specifically dismissed only negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy, while Kanas’s operative pleadings asserted fraud, breach-of-contract, and DTPA claims against all defendants. Garcia did not obtain a written ruling disposing of those remaining claims, including through his later res judicata motion. Because claims against Garcia remained pending, the purported judgment was interlocutory and unappealable.
Key Takeaways
- Calling an order a “final judgment” does not by itself make the order final and appealable.
- A judgment following no conventional trial must clearly express final disposition of all claims and parties or actually dispose of them all.
- Oral statements suggesting that a trial judge intended to dismiss every claim cannot cure missing decretal language in the written orders.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that appellate jurisdiction turns on what the trial court’s written orders actually adjudicate, not merely their titles, finality labels, or the judge’s comments at a hearing. When a dismissal order identifies only specified claims, other pleaded claims remain pending unless a later written order disposes of them.
Litigants seeking an appealable judgment after partial dismissals and severance should ensure that the written judgment expressly resolves every remaining claim against every party. Otherwise, an attempted appeal may be dismissed without review of the underlying dismissals or fee awards.