J.B. Fidelis v. JP Morgan Chase Bank & Co. D/B/A Chase Bank

Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 12, 2023.




                                       In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-23-00650-CV

                             J.B. FIDELIS, Appellant

                                         V.

    JP MORGAN CHASE BANK & CO. D/B/A CHASE BANK, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 151st District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 2022-76311


                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 17, 2023. By its terms, the
judgment dismissed all of appellant’s claims against appellee while awarding
appellee reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs. However, the judgment
did not reduce the award of fees and costs to a sum certain, but rather specified that
appellee’s counsel could provide a supplemental motion for summary judgment as
to fees and costs. As near as can be determined from the appellate record, the trial
court has not yet awarded a specific amount of fees and costs or otherwise resolved
that issue. Accordingly, the judgment is interlocutory rather than final, and it is
accordingly not appealable. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 

(Tex. 2001) (“A judgment that finally disposes of all remaining parties and claims,
based on the record in the case, is final, regardless of its language.”); McLernon v.
Dynegy, Inc., 

 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.)
(acknowledging that a judgment awarding relief must incorporate “language
ordering recovery of a sum certain” in order to be a final judgment). The appealed-
from judgment also lacks any apparent basis for being immediately appealable. See
CMH Homes v. Perez, 

 (Tex. 2011) (acknowledging the general
rule that “interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable”).

      On September 15, 2023, the parties were informed the appeal was subject to
dismissal without further notice for want of jurisdiction unless any party
demonstrated by September 25, 2023 that this court had jurisdiction. See Tex. R.
App. P. 42.3(a). The parties’ responses do not demonstrate this court can properly
exercise jurisdiction over this appeal.

      Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

                                   PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Hassan and Wilson.




                                          2