J.B. Fidelis v. JP Morgan Chase Bank & Co. d/b/a Chase Bank Appeal from 151st District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 12, 2023. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-23-00650-CV J.B. FIDELIS, Appellant V. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK & CO. D/B/A CHASE BANK, Appellee On Appeal from the 151st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2022-76311 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 17, 2023. By its terms, the judgment dismissed all of appellant’s claims against appellee while awarding appellee reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs. However, the judgment did not reduce the award of fees and costs to a sum certain, but rather specified that appellee’s counsel could provide a supplemental motion for summary judgment as to fees and costs. As near as can be determined from the appellate record, the trial court has not yet awarded a specific amount of fees and costs or otherwise resolved that issue. Accordingly, the judgment is interlocutory rather than final, and it is accordingly not appealable. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) (“A judgment that finally disposes of all remaining parties and claims, based on the record in the case, is final, regardless of its language.”); McLernon v. Dynegy, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 315, 322 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (acknowledging that a judgment awarding relief must incorporate “language ordering recovery of a sum certain” in order to be a final judgment). The appealedfrom judgment also lacks any apparent basis for being immediately appealable. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) (acknowledging the general rule that “interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable”). On September 15, 2023, the parties were informed the appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of jurisdiction unless any party demonstrated by September 25, 2023 that this court had jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). The parties’ responses do not demonstrate this court can properly exercise jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Hassan and Wilson. 2
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.
