*1 juror, she could continue finding its not abuse discretion did
her disabled. stated,
For reasons is
affirmed. MINNS, Appellant, L.
Richard MINNS, Appellee. Piotrowski
Barbra
No. 01-87-00748-CV. Texas, Appeals
Court of (1st Dist.). 23, 1988.
Nov.
Rehearing Denied Jan. Donovan, Gano, H. Joe
John Gano & Cunningham, Peterson Reynolds, Reynolds, Cordell, Bennett, Houston, Bruce J. & Hart, Austin, appellant. Cardwell & Flores, III, F. Asst. Hardy G.P. Norberto Gen., Houstоn, appellee. Atty. EVANS, C.J., and SAM Before JJ. BASS FOR OPINION ON MOTION REHEARING EVANS, Justice. Chief August prior opinion dated Our withdrawn, following opinion substituted. Minns, appellant, Richard L. seeks оrder of sanctions of an amended
review 5, 1987, striking dated entering pleadings and lant’s *2 676
monetary judgment against
against
him.
appellant
We con-
lee
the
from all other
clude that the trial court’s order is
by
appellee
interloc-
causes of action asserted
the
utory,
appeal
defendants,
and we dismiss the
for want
the other
order
but this
did not sever the
action from the
divorce
by
ap-
action assеrted
the
2,
The record reflects that on March
pellee against the appellant.
1982,
appellee
the
instituted a
divorcе
tion,
82-09844, against
cause no.
the
A
not
and cannot
Family
lant
the 311th District
Law provide
appeal
a basis for an
unless it
Thereafter,
2, 1982,
Court.
June
the
disposes of all issues and
in the
personal
action,
appellee
injury
instituted a
Hansen,
v.
case. Baker
On the court entered action and did not or divorce sanctions, striking personal amended order der those issues severed from the Indeed, appellant’s pleadings, entering injury a default action. an earlier order judgment аgainst appellant is- expressly stayed “all the record abated and awarding pertaining liability,” sues divorce issues determination aрpellee plus past damages and future action. it pre-judgment post-judgment presumed, not be if a interest. even 1987, 8, applicable, On October court is severed would otherwise be that the disposed all causes of action asserted sues were the default. See
677 9, Barthel, 364, reflects that on March The record Zellers v. granted appellant’s writ). (Tex.App. Worth no —Fort action, re- motion to bifurcate divorce appellant’s argu overrule the We of common law questing that “the issue ments that *3 marriage from all other is- be bifurcatеd inferred from the should be course a prior- and determined on sues in this case of conduct and statements made motion, granting ity basis.” hearing the court and counsel at the on effect, court, separate in ordered trials for con appellee’s motion sanctions. The in with the divorce issues accordance of interlocutory disposition cepts partial provides which that: Tex.R.Civ.P.Ann. issues, leaving others de of certain to be convenience The court in furtherance of date, termined at some future on the one order a prejudice may sepa- or to avoid hand, or inference that cross-claims, claim, any rate of judg the court intended to enter claims, counterclaims, third-party or is- other, ment on the are inconsistent. added.) (Emphasis sues. Teer, at 704. Further, action after both causes of were rehearing is appellant’s motion for consolidated, separate tri- the court ordered overruled, dismissed by ordering als divorce action be want abeyance personal injury held in until the completed. See Tex.R.Civ. action be DUNN, J., concurs. P.Ann. Justice, concurring. The Texas Court has held that: intrinsically judgment, inter- When I concur with the results. The ma- character, locutory in is rendered and jority сoncerning confuses settled law in a case set for a entered judgment finality of of on merits, no trial on the parties court, merits in when all are with separate having issues applicable partial summary judg- the law pursuant to Rule Tex- been entered 17f partial ments and Both default Procedure, as Rules Civil Duddlesten, 702, a at Teer appeal purposes that presumed for case, summary partial and Hous- to, did, dispose all court intended Ap- ton Health v. First Court of all legally and of issues parties before it 692, partial at peals, 722 S.W.2d par- such pleadings made between case, in na- interlocutory sepa- rule ... ties ... The will cases, ture in because those there were (Em- plaintiff_” claims of the rate other had issues and/or defendants that added.) phasis not been severed from the action and were at 897-98. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d judgment. not addressed the court’s Here, appellee’s holding, the order to this both Under lant were severed from her claims the divorce cause bifurcate the divorce personal injury all other and the order abate action of the tion and redocketed undеr cause no. 82- exceptions to the July action 09844-A. fall finality within
1987, gives relief all issues reasons, these I scope of rule 174. For lee’s cаuse action but this hold that the before would appellee’s divorce cause does not refer judg- not a final court is language does contain of action and ment. expressly granted relief not that “all fall
denied.” Unless the can pre- exceptions
within one of judgment, this
sumption light analyze judgment in
Court must presumption.