Joy Brunner, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Corey A. Wood and Joy Brunner, Individually v. Brian Wilson, Randy Wilson, Stephanie Wilson, Robert Heath Talbert, Jeremy Holder and Melinda Boles--Appeal from 217th District Court of Angelina County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-02-00288-CV

Joy BRUNNER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Corey Wood,

Appellant
v.
Brian WILSON, et al.
Appellee
From the 217th Judicial District Court, Angelina County, Texas
Trial Court No. 34.564-01-09
Honorable David V. Wilson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 19, 2003

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

This case arises from a wrongful death and survival action. In September of 2001, Appellant Joy Brunner filed a wrongful death and survivorship action against Randy, Stephanie, and Brian Wilson, as well as Robert Heath Talbert, Jeremy Holder, and Melinda Boles. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of appellees Randy, Stephanie, and Brian Wilson and Robert Heath Talbert. Brunner now appeals the summary judgment in two issues.

Because the issues in this appeal involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we affirm the trial court's judgment in this memorandum opinion under Tex. R. App. P. 47.1 for the following reasons:

In her first issue, Brunner argues against the finality of the judgment. Specifically, she contends the judgment should not have been considered final because (1) Defendant Boles did not move for no-evidence relief, and (2) Defendant Holder's name does not appear in the judgment. Therefore, argues Brunner, the judgment did not finally dispose of all remaining parties and claims based on the record in the case. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

Brunner is correct is stating the summary judgment order which she contests does not dispose of her claims against either Melinda Boles or Jeremy Holder. Neither did the trial court sever these claims from those addressed by the summary judgment. We cannot, however, address Brunner's issues. Unless authorized by statute, this Court has no jurisdiction over interlocutory orders. See New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex. 1990). Because there has been no final judgment or severance signed by the trial court, this Court does not possess jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. (1)

PER CURIAM

1. Because we lack the jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we do not have to address Brunner's second issue regarding the legal sufficiency of the motion for summary judgment.