Young, Linda v. Golfing Green Homeowners Association, Inc.--Appeal from County Court At Law No. 1 of Kaufman County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
l)ISMISS; Opinion issue4i December 21. 2012. In The Etitirt tif pra1 WiitI! Jitrirt uf axa at 1tai No. 05- 12-00651-CV LINDA YOUNG, Appellant V. GOLFING GREEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. INC. Appell ee On Appeal from the County Court at Law Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 76706-CC MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Fillmore. and Myers Opinion By Justice Fillmore Subject to a few mostly statutory exceptions not applicable here, appella te courts have jurisdiction only over appeals taken from final judgments that dispos e of all pending parties and claims in the record. See Lehniann . Hcir-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). In this appeal. Linda Young challenges an order granting an interlocutory surnma ryjudgment. to the Golfing Green Homeowners Association, Inc. on its claims against Young. The order indicates the trial court found Young to be in violation of certain provisions of the neighborhood s declaration of covenants and rules of conduct and, as requested by Golfing Green, granted perman ent injunctive relief requiring, among other things, that Young make certain permanent changes to her premises. The interlocutory order, however, does not provide a date by which Young must comply, specifically states it does not dispose of Young s counterclaims against Golfing Green, and jdjecree{sI that Golfing Green shall ha\ e all rits of execuLion and other processes necessary to enforce this judement when came becomes final. At ,ur direction. the parties filed briefs idressing our jurisdiction over the order. Young contends in her brief that we have jurisdiction because the summary judgment dispos ed of all of Golfing Green s claims, including a claiiri for permanent injunctive relief. Golfing Green counte rs we do not have juri.sdictioii because Young s counterclaims remain pending. We agree with Golfing Greeii Alihouh it grants permanent injunctive relict, the interlocutory summary judgment order . [ails to expressly dispose of oungs couiiterclaiins and makes enforcement of the injunc tive relief granted dependent on the disposition of oung s counterclaims. A summary judgm ent that fails to dispose of all claims, even if it grants a permanent injunction, is interlocutory and unappe alable. See City a! Beaumont v. Gui/Ion , 751 S.W.2d 491,492 (Tex. 1988) (per euriam); Aloe Vera ojAm., Inc. c. CIC Cosmetics Iii! ! Corp., 5 17 S.W.2d 433. 435 (Tex. Civ. App. Dallas 1974, no writ). In concluding we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we distinguish the facts before us from the facts in Qwest Communications Corp. c.AT& TCorp.. 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2000) (per euriam). In Qwest, the trial court entered an order restricting Qwest s activities in the United States for a period of three years. The court of appeals dismissed Qwest s interlocutory appeal of the order, concluding the order did not meet the traditional requirements of a temporary injunction because it did not preserve the status quo. require a bond, set a trial date, or require the clerk to issue a writ of injunction and because the order s duration was not limited until final judgment or further order of the court. Id. at 335. Reversing the court of appeals judgment, the supreme court concluded that Iblecause the trial court s order place[dI restrictions on Qwest and Iwasi made effective immediately so that it operaterdi during the pendency of the suit, it function[edl as injunction. 1(1. at 337. a temporary 1 lere, oung did not tile a notice ol accelerated appeal and does not argue the injunc tive rel id ranted. though relerred u) as permanent by the trial court, is temporary and coiilers unsdict ion upon us pursuant to st.c lion 5 I ( ) I 4( a )(4 lollowed a hearing on a motion for summary judgment and Additionally, the complained of order Was not based on any pleadmgs seeking temporary injunctive relief. In fact, Golfing Green never sought temporary injunctive relief. Finally, the summary judgment order does not contain a date by which Young must compl y with the pennandlit injunction or provide an enlorcemeni mechanism br non compliance until following disposition of Young s counterclaims. Accordingly. we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction . Tux. R. APP. P. 42.3(a ( L 5 ). ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE 120651 F.P05 3 Q!niirt uf Appia1a fiftI! JiIrirt Lii ixa at DaI1L! JUDGMENT LINDA YOUNG, Appellant No, 05 1 2M065 I CV V. (IOLFIN(i GREEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law of Kauhnan County. Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 76706 CC), Opinion delivered Lw Justice Fillmore. Justices Moseley and Myers participating. In accordance with this Court s opinion of this date, we I)ISMISS the appeal. We ORDE R that appellee Golfing Green Homeowners Association, Inc. recover its costs of this appeal from appellant Linda Young. Judgment entered December 21, 2012. I ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
