Jared Voetee v. Ovation Services, LLC

NUMBER 13-26-00422-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

JARED VOETEE, Appellant,

v.

OVATION SERVICES, LLC, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE 421ST DISTRICT COURT
OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS
____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Peña, West, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca

This matter is before the Court on appellee’s opposed motion to dismiss appeal,

appellant’s reply brief, and appellee’s reply. On April 17, 2026, appellant, Jared Voetee,

filed a “Defendant Petitions for Appeal” in cause no. 22-O-040. 1 Upon review of the

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket

equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
documents before the Court, despite bearing the name “Summary Judgment,” it appears

that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. “[A]n

order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every

pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes

of all claims and parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001).

Upon review of the record, it appears that some parties and claims to the underlying

litigation remain pending before the trial court; specifically, there appears to be no

resolution of the claims brought by intervenor Caldwell County Appraisal District. Based

on the items in the appellate record, it appears there is not yet a final, appealable

judgment.

On June 17, 2026, appellant filed an amended notice of appeal, and on June 18,

2026, appellant filed a brief reply. These documents both acquiesce that the underlying

litigation involves an additional party, but appellant asserts the appeal is interlocutory and

that the trial court orally pronounced that the order was appealable. Despite these

assertions, appellant fails to identify a statute establishing the appealability of such an

interlocutory order.

Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, this Court has no

jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 W.S.3d 316, 319 n. 1 (Tex.

2007); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,195 (Tex. 2001). The Court, having

considered the record before us and appellant’s failure to correct the defect in this matter,

is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

2
APP. P. 42.3(a). Accordingly, appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
25th day of June, 2026.

3