Michael R. Keenan, Et Ux, Ramona L. Keenan v. Thomas Samuel Robin, Mary Margot Connor, Dustin Wayne Lubbock, Meredith C. Lubbock and John Doe, LLC
07-21-00190-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 22, 2022Background
- Appellants Michael R. Keenan and Ramona L. Keenan sued multiple defendants (including named individuals and Lazy LR Cattle Company) asserting §1983, malicious prosecution, trespass, and seeking declaratory relief and attorney’s fees under the UDJA.
- Defendants moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment; the trial court entered an order denying the plaintiffs’ motion to suppress depositions and granting defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
- The summary-judgment order omitted a signing date, lacked decretal language, did not identify all parties (Lazy LR Cattle Company was omitted), and contained no express statement of finality.
- Appellants attempted to appeal the order as a final judgment; appellees had not moved against the UDJA attorney‑fees request in their summary-judgment motion.
- The court of appeals concluded the order was not final or appealable, declined to remand under Tex. R. App. P. 27.2 to allow the trial court to make the order final, and dismissed the attempted appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability / finality of the summary-judgment order | The order should be treated as a final judgment and appealable | The order is interlocutory and not final | Dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction; order is not final |
| Missing signature date | Court’s intent or filing suffices to fix appeal period | Blank signing date prevents determining when judgment was entered and appeal deadline | Missing date is problematic and undercuts final-judgment characterization |
| Decretal language / adjudication of rights | Granting MSJ reflects disposition of claims | Order lacks decretal language settling the parties’ rights; thus not final | Order without decretal language does not evince a final adjudication |
| UDJA attorney’s fees & omitted party identification | Plaintiffs had requested UDJA fees and presumed resolution | Appellees didn’t move on UDJA fees; court may still award fees; omission of Lazy LR undermines completeness | Because fees were not adjudicated and a party wasn’t named, plus no expression of finality, order is not final; remand declined |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (final-judgment standard: disposes of all parties and claims)
- In re Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of McAllen, Inc., 167 S.W.3d 827 (Tex. 2005) (no presumption of finality for summary or default judgments)
- Disco Machine of Liberal Co. v. Payton, 900 S.W.2d 71 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1995) (an order granting MSJ without decretal language does not necessarily adjudicate rights)
- Feldman v. KPMG LLP, 438 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (trial court may award UDJA attorney’s fees even where declaratory relief is dismissed)
- Kenneth D. Eichner, P.C. v. Dominguez, 623 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. 2021) (timing rules for filing a notice of appeal after judgment)