Annette S. Muecke v. Best Pawn & Jewelry, Inc., Wayne Spruill, Peter Torres, Jr. & The Law Offices Of Peter Torres, Jr., P.C.--Appeal from County Court at Law No 3 of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-02-00006-CV
Annette S. MUECKE,
Appellant
v.
BEST PAWN & JEWELRY, INC., Wayne Spruill, Peter Torres, Jr.,

and The Law Offices of Peter Torres, Jr., P.C.,
Appellees
From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 233,985
Honorable Shay Gebhardt, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 20, 2003

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

Annette Muecke originally brought suit against appellees Best Pawn & Jewelry, Inc. and Wayne Spruill for violations of the Texas Pawn Shop Act, fraud, and usury. Muecke later joined Peter Torres, Jr. and The Law Office of Peter Torres, Jr. as defendants in her suit, alleging Torres and his law firm committed fraud and malpractice, and breached their fiduciary duty to her. In response to Muecke's petition, Best Pawn & Jewelry, Inc. and Wayne Spruill (collectively "Best Pawn & Jewelry") filed counterclaims against Muecke for filing a frivolous action. Best Pawn & Jewelry also filed a motion for summary judgment. Although Peter Torres, Jr. and The Law Offices of Peter Torres, Jr. P.C. did not file any counterclaims against Muecke, they too filed motions for summary judgment.

During the pendency of the underlying litigation, Muecke notified the trial court that an automatic bankruptcy stay prevented the trial court from proceeding on Best Pawn & Jewelry's counterclaims. See 11 U.S.C.A. 362 (West 1993 & Supp. 2003). The trial court acknowledged that unless Best Pawn & Jewelry filed a motion in federal district court to lift the automatic stay, the court could not rule on Best Pawn & Jewelry's counterclaims at that time. Because Best Pawn & Jewelry never filed a motion to lift the stay, the trial court expressly declined to address the merits of Best Pawn & Jewelry's counterclaims. Muecke filed this appeal after the trial court determined each of the appellees was entitled to summary judgment.

As a general rule, a party may take an appeal only from a final judgment. Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992). A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record. Id. In this case, Best Pawn & Jewelry still has unresolved counterclaims pending in the trial court; thus, there is not yet a final judgment from which Muecke can appeal. (1) Because the record in this case does not affirmatively demonstrate our jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Garcia v. Comm'rs Court, 101 S.W.3d 778, 784 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2003, no pet. h.) ("[i]f the record does not affirmatively demonstrate the appellate court's jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed."). Based on the foregoing, we need not reach the merits of Muecke's contentions at this juncture.

Catherine Stone, Justice

1. No formal severance of unadjudicated issues or parties was filed in this case. See Cherokee Water Co. v. Ross, 698 S.W.2d 363, 365 (Tex. 1985) ("[a] summary judgment which does not dispose of all parties or issues remains interlocutory without a formal severance of the unadjudicated issues or parties.").