Alberto R. Garza and Leticia I. Garza v. Burch Construction, Inc., 13-15-00052-CV

Alberto and Leticia Garza sued Burch Construction and others for damages from flooding of the Garzas’ home.
On April 15, 2014, Burch filed a counterclaim seeking attorneys’ fees under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001.
On May 16, 2014, the trial court signed a summary-judgment–style order disposing of the Garzas’ individual claims against Burch.
Nothing in the record clearly indicates whether the trial court intended that May 16 order to resolve Burch’s counterclaim for attorneys’ fees.
On November 25, 2014 the trial court severed the Garzas’ claims against Burch and Burch’s counterclaim for fees.
The Court of Appeals questioned whether the May 16 order was final and appealable because an unresolved counterclaim for fees would defeat finality, so the appeal was abated for clarification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the May 16, 2014 order is a final, appealable judgment	The Garzas (appellants) proceeded with appeal treating the order as final	Burch contends the order is not final because it did not dispose of its counterclaim for attorneys’ fees	Court found finality unclear and abated the appeal for the trial court to clarify/modify the order
Proper remedy when finality is unclear	Garzas implicitly argue appeal may proceed	Burch urges leave to modify or require trial-court disposition of the fee claim	Court ordered abatement under Tex. R. App. P. 27.2: trial court must clarify intent or dispose of fee counterclaim; appeal stayed pending supplementation

Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (a judgment is final only if it disposes of all claims and parties)
McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. 2001) (summary judgment that leaves a defendant’s counterclaim for attorney’s fees unresolved is not final)
Harrison v. TDCJ‑ID, 134 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004) (order clarifying trial court intent can effectuate a final judgment when appropriate)