Antonio Arriaga and Inez Lara Rosales v. Obdulia Martinez Arriaga, Antonio Martinez Arriaga Jr., and Reyna Luisa Martinez Arriaga, 13-15-00038-CV

Background

In 1993 Arriaga signed a deed conveying eleven Willacy County parcels to his children; in 2014 he sued pro se seeking declaratory relief that he and his second wife (Rosales) owned 50% of the disputed properties, an accounting, and half the sale proceeds, and recorded a lis pendens.
Appellees answered, filed special exceptions citing Martin v. Amerman, counterclaimed (including defamation), and sought a receiver and injunction against Arriaga collecting rents.
The trial court sustained special exceptions and ordered Arriaga to replead; later it appointed a receiver, enjoined rent collection, and ordered certain documents produced to the receiver.
Rosales filed a pro se plea in intervention asserting equitable ownership; appellees moved to dismiss Arriaga’s declaratory-judgment claims for failure to comply and moved under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a to dismiss Rosales’s intervention.
The trial court entered an Order of Dismissal dissolving the receivership, striking Arriaga’s pleadings for failure to amend, nullifying the lis pendens, directing that rents not be collected, and dismissing Rosales’s claims under Rule 91a; Arriaga and Rosales appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Order of Dismissal is a final, appealable judgment	Arriaga/Rosales treated the Order as final and appealed its dismissal effects (e.g., striking pleadings, ending receivership, nullifying lis pendens)	Appellees implicitly argue the order resolved matters and dismissal should be reviewable	Court held the Order was not final because it did not dispose of appellees’ pending defamation counterclaim; therefore no appellate jurisdiction
Whether the Order’s language manifests intent to be final despite unresolved claims	Arriaga argued the order’s effects show intent to end the case	Appellees relied on the Order’s operative effects to support finality	Court held the Order lacked unmistakable language or Mother Hubbard clause signaling finality and could not be construed as final when a counterclaim remained pending
Whether the appeal should be abated for clarification rather than dismissed	Appellants requested appellate review; abatement could allow trial court to clarify intent	Appellees did not demonstrate that remaining matters were merely clerical	Court held abatement inappropriate because the remaining defamation counterclaim is substantive, not merely a perfunctory defect
Whether denial of Rosales’s intervention or other interim orders are separately appealable	Appellants listed multiple orders in the notice of appeal	Appellees contended the orders could be part of an appeal if a final judgment existed	Court noted even if the intervention denial were final as to Rosales, the appeal must be final as to all parties and claims; jurisdiction lacking because not final as to all claims

Key Cases Cited

Martin v. Amerman, 133 S.W.3d 262 (Tex. 2004) (limits on declaratory-judgment actions in suits to quiet title)
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (when judgments are final for appeal; conclusiveness by language or disposition of all claims)
CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2011) (appellate jurisdiction generally limited to final judgments)
Farm Bureau County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. 2015) (a judgment is final if it disposes of all claims and parties or unmistakably states finality)
Parks v. DeWitt County Elec. Co-op., Inc., 112 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2003) (appellate court reviews jurisdiction de novo; dismissal if record does not show jurisdiction)
Garcia v. State Farm Lloyds, 287 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2009) (appellate courts may consider jurisdiction sua sponte)
Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. 2000) (pleadings construed liberally when special exceptions not filed)
In re Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of McAllen, Inc., 167 S.W.3d 827 (Tex. 2005) (default judgment lacking language disposing of all claims is interlocutory)
Law Offices of Windle Turley, P.C. v. French, 109 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2003) (unaddressed counterclaims prevent judgment from being final)
Sw. Invs. Diversified, Inc. v. Estate of Mieszkuc, 171 S.W.3d 461 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (unresolved claims and parties are not merely ministerial for purposes of finality)