Background
Ameerah Hashim Alwan attempted to appeal a Tarrant County district court order dismissing his claims against Northhill Manor Housing Partners, LP and Asset Living under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a.
The dismissal order stated that the trial court would determine at a future hearing Alwan’s liability for court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees under Rule 91a.7. After the court of appeals raised jurisdictional concerns, Alwan argued that the reserved fee determination should not count as an unresolved claim for purposes of finality.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Court of Appeals held that the dismissal order was not a final judgment because it expressly left the Rule 91a.7 fee issue for future resolution. The order therefore neither actually disposed of every pending claim and party nor clearly and unequivocally stated that it finally disposed of all claims and parties.
The court rejected Alwan’s argument that the reserved fee determination did not affect finality, explaining that its precedent treats a Rule 91a attorney’s-fee request as an affirmative claim for relief that can prevent a judgment from becoming final. Because no statute authorized an interlocutory appeal in these circumstances, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 91a dismissal order is not final when it reserves liability for court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees for a later hearing.
- An unresolved request for Rule 91a fees can constitute a pending affirmative claim for relief.
- Without a final judgment or statutory authorization for an interlocutory appeal, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
Parties appealing a Rule 91a dismissal must confirm that the trial court has resolved any request for costs and attorney’s fees or has clearly and unequivocally rendered a final judgment. An appeal filed while that issue remains pending may be dismissed without review of the dismissal’s merits.