Eric Dewayne Burns Sr. Eric Dewayne Burns Jr. And Vennetta Burns v. Debra Lynn Lowry and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Opinion filed June 13, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
___________

No. 11-24-00100-CV
___________

ERIC DEWAYNE BURNS SR.; ERIC DEWAYNE BURNS JR.;
AND VENNETTA BURNS, Appellants
V.
DEBRA LYNN LOWRY AND LIBERTY COUNTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees

On Appeal from the 350th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 13224-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants, Eric Dewayne Burns Sr., Eric Dewayne Burns Jr., and Vennetta
Burns, have filed a pro se notice of appeal, which purports to appeal the trial court’s
order granting Appellee Liberty County Mutual Insurance Company’s Rule 91a
motion to dismiss. The order granting Liberty County Mutual’s motion to dismiss
does not indicate that it filed its Rule 91a motion jointly with Appellee Debra Lynn
Lowry, or that the trial court granted the motion jointly, with Appellee Debra Lynn
Lowry or any other defendant in the proceedings below. The trial court’s order does
not dispose of all remaining parties and claims or include unequivocal finality
language indicating that it is a final order, that the order is appealable, or that the
order disposes of all claims and parties before the court. See Sealy Emergency Room,
L.L.C. v. Free Standing Emergency Room Mgrs. of Am., L.L.C., 685 S.W.3d 816,
820 (Tex. 2024) (citing Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex.
2001)).
In a letter dated April 22, 2024, the clerk of this court wrote the parties and
informed them that it did not appear that Appellants were attempting to appeal from
a final, appealable order. We requested that Appellants respond and show grounds
to continue the appeal. We also informed Appellants that this appeal may be
dismissed. Appellants did not respond to our request and show grounds to continue
this appeal; instead, they opted to file a petition for writ of mandamus, alleging
failures by the trial court and the court reporter in the trial court proceedings below.1
Appellate courts may review only final judgments or interlocutory orders
specifically made appealable by statute. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. A trial
court’s interlocutory order granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss is not an appealable
order. See Woodard v. Tu, No. 02-22-00483-CV, 2023 WL 2429796, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth Mar. 9, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (collecting cases). In this
regard, a judgment rendered without a conventional trial on the merits is not final
unless it “(1) dispose[s] of all remaining parties and claims then before the court,
regardless of its language; or (2) include[s] unequivocal finality language that
expressly disposes of all claims and parties.” Sealy Emergency Room, 685 S.W.3d
at 820. The trial court’s order granting one Appellee’s Rule 91a motion to dismiss

1
We have today denied the petition for writ of mandamus. See In re Eric Dewayne Burns Sr.; Eric
Dewayne Burns Jr.; and Vennetta Burns, No. 11-24-00166-CV (Tex. App.—Eastland June 13, 2024, orig.
proceeding).
2
does neither. Because the trial court’s interlocutory order is not a final judgment and
is not independently appealable, we are without jurisdiction to consider it.
Therefore, we must dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

June 13, 2024
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3