What did the court decide?

The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the summary judgment did not finally decide all claims — specifically, attorney's fees remained pending — so the court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Who is affected by this decision?

EZ Automotive, which appealed the summary judgment, is directly affected because its appeal was dismissed; Recaman's declaratory judgment remains in the trial court along with the unresolved fee request.

What happens next in the trial court?

The trial court still must resolve Recaman's request for attorney's fees so that a final judgment can be entered; after that final judgment a party may appeal.

Can this dismissal be appealed?

Generally no; the dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction is final as to this court's review, but once the trial court issues a final judgment resolving all claims, a party can file a new appeal.

EZ Automotive and Towing SVC LLC v. Recaman Auto Group

Docket 07-25-00140-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDismissed

Filed: Apr 22, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 07-25-00140-CV

Appeal from the trial court's summary judgment in a declaratory-judgment action concerning vehicle ownership

Summary

The Court of Appeals dismissed EZ Automotive and Towing SVC LLC's appeal from the trial court's summary judgment because the judgment was not final or appealable. Recaman Auto Group obtained summary judgment on its declaratory-judgment claim about ownership of a Chevrolet Silverado, but the trial court expressly left Recaman's request for attorney’s fees undecided. Because the fee claim remained pending and the order lacked finality language, the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Issues Decided

Whether the trial court's summary judgment was a final, appealable judgment when a claim for attorney's fees remained undecided
Whether any statute made the interlocutory summary judgment immediately appealable

Court's Reasoning

Texas law requires a judgment to dispose of all claims and parties or clearly state finality to be appealable. The trial court granted summary judgment on the declaratory claim but did not resolve the requested attorney's fees, leaving a pending claim. Because the order lacked finality language and no statute authorized immediate appeal of the interlocutory order, the appellate court had no jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

Authorities Cited

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001)
Sealy Emerg. Room, L.L.C. v. Free Standing Emerg. Room Managers685 S.W.3d 816 (Tex. 2024)
Stary v. DeBord967 S.W.2d 352 (Tex. 1998)

Parties

Appellant: EZ Automotive and Towing SVC LLC
Appellee: Recaman Auto Group
Judge: Robert Ramirez

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-22
Clerk letter to appellant regarding jurisdictional defect: 2026-03-27
Deadline to respond to jurisdictional defect letter: 2026-04-06

What You Should Do Next

1
Seek resolution of attorney's fees in trial court
If favorable to Recaman, obtain an order disposing of the fee claim so a final judgment can be entered; if representing EZ Automotive, move the trial court to decide the fee issue or seek consolidation of determinations to create a final judgment.
2
File a new appeal after final judgment
Once the trial court enters a final judgment disposing of all claims and parties (including fees), the aggrieved party can file a timely appeal to the appropriate appellate court.
3
Consult trial counsel about procedural options
Discuss with counsel whether to request the trial court to render a severable final judgment, to obtain a certification of finality if appropriate, or to pursue post-judgment motions to expedite a final disposition.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the summary judgment did not finally decide all claims — specifically, attorney's fees remained pending — so the court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Who is affected by this decision?: EZ Automotive, which appealed the summary judgment, is directly affected because its appeal was dismissed; Recaman's declaratory judgment remains in the trial court along with the unresolved fee request.
What happens next in the trial court?: The trial court still must resolve Recaman's request for attorney's fees so that a final judgment can be entered; after that final judgment a party may appeal.
Can this dismissal be appealed?: Generally no; the dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction is final as to this court's review, but once the trial court issues a final judgment resolving all claims, a party can file a new appeal.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00140-CV

EZ AUTOMOTIVE AND TOWING SVC LLC, APPELLANT

RECAMAN AUTO GROUP, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Denton County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV2024-03300, Honorable Robert Ramirez, Presiding

April 22, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.

Appellant, EZ Automotive and Towing SVC LLC, appeals from the trial court’s

Summary Judgment.1 Because there is no final, appealable judgment, we dismiss the

appeal the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001.
Appellee, Recaman Auto Group, filed suit against EZ Automotive, seeking a

declaratory judgment regarding ownership of a Chevrolet Silverado and requesting

attorney’s fees pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.

& REM. § 37.009. Recaman later moved for summary judgment on its declaratory claim

but expressly reserved its request for attorney’s fees for later determination. The trial

court granted summary judgment in Recaman’s favor, but it did not dispose of its claim

for attorney’s fees.

Appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments or from

interlocutory orders made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex.

1998) (per curiam). “[W]hen there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an

order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every

pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes

of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205–06.

Here, the Summary Judgment order contains no finality language and does not

dispose of all claims. When a party requests a mandatory or discretionary award of

attorney’s fees, the trial court must expressly dispose of the fee request to render a final

judgment. See Sealy Emerg. Room, L.L.C. v. Free Standing Emerg. Room Managers,

685 S.W.3d 816, 825 (Tex. 2024). Because the trial court did not dispose of Recaman’s

fee request, the summary judgment is not final. See id. Further, no statute authorizes an

appeal from this interlocutory order.

2
By letter of March 27, 2026, we informed EZ Automotive of the apparent

jurisdictional defect and directed it to show grounds for continuing the appeal by April 6,

2026, or risk dismissal of the appeal. EZ Automotive has not responded to our letter.

Accordingly, we conclude that no final judgment or appealable order is before us

and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

Per Curiam