What did the court decide?

The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the trial court's order was not final and therefore not appealable.

Who is affected by this decision?

Appellant Isabelle Edwards is affected because her appeal is dismissed; the trial court's dismissal of her claim and the unresolved attorney-fee determination remain at the trial level.

What happens next in the case below?

The trial court retains jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorneys' fees and any other unresolved matters; the parties may proceed in the trial court or file a proper, appealable order later.

Can Edwards appeal again?

She could appeal later if the trial court enters a final judgment that disposes of all claims and parties or if there is a statutory basis for an interlocutory appeal; otherwise, she may be limited to post-judgment appeals.

Isabelle Edwards v. KFS Lewisville, LLC

Docket 02-25-00422-CV

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

CivilDismissed

Filed: Apr 23, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 02-25-00422-CV

Appeal from an order granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss in a county court at law matter

Summary

The court dismissed pro se appellant Isabelle Edwards’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Edwards sought review of the trial court’s August 5, 2025 order granting KFS Lewisville LLC’s motion to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a and awarding attorneys’ fees, but the trial court expressly stated the fee amount had not yet been determined and that its order was not final. The appellate court concluded the order neither finally disposed of every claim nor was an appealable interlocutory order, so the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction after Edwards failed to respond to the court’s notice to show grounds to continue the appeal.

Issues Decided

Whether the trial court's August 5, 2025 order was a final judgment that could be appealed
Whether an interlocutory order granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss is immediately appealable

Court's Reasoning

The court applied Texas precedent that an order without a conventional trial is final only if it disposes of every claim and party or clearly states it finally disposes of all claims. The August 5 order expressly said the attorneys' fee amount remained to be determined and stated it was not a final order. Texas decisions also hold that a Rule 91a dismissal that is interlocutory and does not resolve all pending claims is not appealable, so the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

Authorities Cited

Bonsmara Nat. Beef Co. v. Hart of Tex. Cattle Feeders, LLC603 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. 2020)
In re Guardianship of Jones629 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. 2021)
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001)

Parties

Appellant: Isabelle Edwards
Appellee: KFS Lewisville, LLC
Judge: Justice Brian Walker
Judge: Chief Justice Sudderth
Judge: Justice Kerr

Key Dates

Trial court order date: 2025-08-05
Appellate dismissal date: 2026-04-23
Deadline to show grounds to continue appeal: 2026-03-16

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider obtaining a final judgment
If Edwards wants an appealable order, she should seek a final judgment in the trial court that disposes of all claims and parties or obtain a ruling that makes the order immediately appealable.
2
Address attorneys' fees determination
Monitor or participate in any trial court proceedings to resolve the amount of attorneys' fees, since that issue remains pending and the trial court retains jurisdiction.
3
Consult an attorney
Edwards should consult counsel to evaluate whether a timely appealable order can be obtained or whether other procedural options (motion for reconsideration, appeal after final judgment) are available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the trial court's order was not final and therefore not appealable.
Who is affected by this decision?: Appellant Isabelle Edwards is affected because her appeal is dismissed; the trial court's dismissal of her claim and the unresolved attorney-fee determination remain at the trial level.
What happens next in the case below?: The trial court retains jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorneys' fees and any other unresolved matters; the parties may proceed in the trial court or file a proper, appealable order later.
Can Edwards appeal again?: She could appeal later if the trial court enters a final judgment that disposes of all claims and parties or if there is a statutory basis for an interlocutory appeal; otherwise, she may be limited to post-judgment appeals.

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
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-25-00422-CV
___________________________

ISABELLE EDWARDS, Appellant

KFS LEWISVILLE, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2
Denton County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV-2025-02331-JP

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Isabelle Edwards, acting pro se, attempts to appeal from the trial

court’s August 5, 2025 order granting Appellee KFS Lewisville LLC’s motion to

dismiss and awarding KFS Lewisville attorneys’ fees pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil

Procedure 91a. The order expressly disposes of Edwards’s claim but also clearly

states that the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded has not yet been determined.

We may consider appeals only from final judgments or from interlocutory

orders made immediately appealable by statute. Bonsmara Nat. Beef Co. v. Hart of Tex.

Cattle Feeders, LLC, 603 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. 2020). When, as here, a judgment is

rendered without a conventional trial on the merits, the judgment “is not final unless

(1) it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or (2) it clearly and

unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties” even though the

statement was included in error and the order “should have been interlocutory.” In re

Guardianship of Jones, 629 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. 2021); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.,

39 S.W.3d 191, 200, 205 (Tex. 2001).

The trial court’s August 5, 2025 order does neither. In fact, it does just the

opposite by expressly stating that the attorneys’ fees amount has not yet been

determined and that “[t]his is not a final order subject to immediate appellate review.”

Additionally, an interlocutory order granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss is not

appealable. Hollis v. ProPath Assocs., PLLC, No. 02-19-00167-CV, 2019 WL 3024472,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 11, 2019, no pet.); see DRC Constr. v. Pickle, No. 01-

2
20-00576-CV, 2022 WL 479918, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 17, 2022,

no pet.) (“No statutory or other authority allows for an interlocutory appeal from an

order that grants a Rule 91a motion to dismiss but does not dispose of all pending

claims.”).

We notified Edwards that we questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal

because the order does not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable

interlocutory order. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. We informed her that this appeal could

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless by March 16, 2026, she filed a response

showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. We have

received no response.

Because the order from which Edwards attempts to appeal is neither a final

judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker
Justice

Delivered: April 23, 2026