The opinion
Opinion issued April 14, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-15-00260-CV
———————————
JOAN DEYOUNG, STEPHEN DEYOUNG, M.D.,
AND DAVID DEYOUNG, Appellants
V.
WILLIAM L. MAYNARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR
OF THE ESTATE OF JUDY PAGE MAYNARD, DECEASED,
AND MAYNARD PROPERTIES, L.P., Appellees
On Appeal from the 270th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2011-18770
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joan DeYoung, Stephen DeYoung, M.D., and David DeYoung attempt to
appeal the trial court’s February 17, 2015 and March 9, 2015 orders granting the no-
evidence summary judgment motion filed by William Maynard, individually and as
executor of the estate of Judy Page Maynard, deceased, and Maynard Properties,
L.P. (collectively, Maynard). We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
This Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and those
interlocutory orders specifically authorized by statute. Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd.
v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d
444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); see Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex.
2001); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West 2015)
(authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders).
The record reveals that Maynard’s no-evidence grounds for summary
judgment encompass only three of the DeYoungs’ four claims; Maynard’s motion
did not address their claim for breach of the duty of loyalty and care under Chapter
152 of the Texas Business Organizations Code.1 Maynard also sought summary
judgment on all of the DeYoungs’ claims pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
166a(c) based on the affirmative defense of limitations, but the order appealed from
does not contain a ruling on that portion of Maynard’s motion. Further, nothing in
the record indicates that the DeYoungs abandoned their Chapter 152 claim or that
Maynard had any intent to abandon the limitations defense. A footnote in the notice
of appeal states that, “while the Court has indicated that an additional judgment will
1
The DeYoungs’ live pleading was on file before Maynard moved for summary
judgment.
2
be entered in this matter, this notice of appeal is filed in an excess of caution based
on plaintiffs’ understanding that the Court considered its February 17, 2015 order to
be a final judgment in this matter.”
The trial court’s order, however, does not contain language purporting to
dispose of all parties and all claims or otherwise unequivocally express any intent to
finally dispose of the entire case. The trial court’s docket entries indicate that it
intended to grant summary judgment without specifying grounds and that it intended
its judgment to be final, but a docket entry cannot change or enlarge the judgment
as entered. Hamilton v. Empire Gas & Fuel Co., 110 S.W.2d 561, 566 (Tex. 1987),
cited in In re Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of McAllen, Inc., 167 S.W.3d 827,
831 (Tex. 2005). Because the record lacks a final judgment or appealable
interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Jane Bland
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Bland, Brown, and Lloyd.
3