Amanda Canida v. B&H Realty, LLC

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District dismissed Amanda Canida’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. The trial court’s order granting B&H Realty, LLC’s Rule 91a motion and awarding attorney’s fees did not dispose of B&H Construction, LLC’s pending claims, and the amount of fees had not yet been determined, so the order was neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order.

Holdings

1. The order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of all pending claims and parties and did not clearly and unequivocally state that it finally disposed of all claims and parties.
2. The order was not immediately appealable because it did not fall within a statutory exception authorizing an interlocutory appeal.
3. The court of appeals lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the April 6, 2026 order was a final judgment appealable as of right.
2. Whether the order was an interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute.
3. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to continue the appeal.

Disposition

dismissed