Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 14-25-01081-CV, February 03, 2026.
On appeal from the 165th District Court of Harris County
Synopsis
An appellate court lacks jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) when a request for attorney’s fees remains pending in the trial court. Because Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(12) only authorizes an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a TCPA motion, an order granting such a motion is not appealable until a final judgment is rendered.
Relevance to Family Law
While the TCPA is frequently categorized as a tool for commercial or media litigation, it increasingly “crossovers” into the family law arena, particularly in high-conflict divorces involving “family-adjacent” torts such as defamation, tortious interference with parental rights, or claims against third parties for communications made during a custody evaluation. Family law practitioners must recognize that the TCPA’s interlocutory appeal provisions are asymmetrical; while a denied motion can be appealed immediately to stay trial proceedings, a granted motion—which often carries a mandatory award of attorney’s fees—remains interlocutory and unappealable until the fee issue is fully adjudicated or severed.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The dispute underlying this appeal involved a motion to dismiss filed by the appellee, William Scott Crawford, pursuant to the TCPA. On November 7, 2025, the trial court signed an order granting Crawford’s motion to dismiss the claims brought by the appellant, Tod Tumey. Crucially, however, Crawford had also requested attorney’s fees under section 27.009 of the TCPA, and that request remained pending and unresolved at the time Tumey filed his notice of appeal. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued a notice to the parties questioning its jurisdiction over the appeal, given that the order appeared interlocutory. The appellant failed to provide a response demonstrating grounds for the court to exercise jurisdiction.
Issues Decided
Whether an appellate court has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from a trial court’s order granting a TCPA motion to dismiss when the associated claim for attorney’s fees has not yet been resolved.
Rules Applied
The court relied upon the foundational principle in Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. that appeals may generally be taken only from final judgments that dispose of all pending parties and claims. Because the order in question did not dispose of the request for attorney’s fees, it remained interlocutory. The court further analyzed Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(12), which provides a limited statutory exception allowing for an interlocutory appeal only from an order that “denies a motion to dismiss filed under section 27.003.” Following established precedents such as Trane US, Inc. v. Sublett and its own prior holding in Fleming & Assocs. v. Kirklin, the court confirmed that no statutory authority exists for an interlocutory appeal from the grant of a TCPA motion.
Application
The court’s analysis centered on the strict construction of statutory interlocutory jurisdiction. In Texas, interlocutory appeals are prohibited unless a specific statute authorizes them. While section 51.014(a)(12) provides a clear pathway for an immediate appeal when a TCPA motion is denied, the statute is silent regarding orders that grant such motions. In this case, the legal story was cut short by the pending attorney’s fees. Because the trial court had not yet determined the amount of fees to be awarded under section 27.009, the order granting the dismissal did not constitute a final judgment. Consequently, without a final judgment and without a specific statutory exception for granted TCPA motions, the appellate court was required to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
Holding
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a TCPA motion to dismiss while a claim for attorney’s fees remains pending in the trial court.
The court further held that because the appellant failed to show any other statutory basis for the appeal or respond to the court’s jurisdictional inquiry, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety.
Practical Application
For family law litigators, this case serves as a procedural roadmap for handling TCPA dismissals of tort claims within or related to a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) or divorce. If you successfully move for dismissal of a “revenge” defamation claim or a third-party tort, do not assume the case is over once the judge signs the dismissal order. You must set a hearing to adjudicate attorney’s fees and costs to reach a final, appealable judgment. If the opposing party appeals before that fee hearing occurs, you have a potent jurisdictional weapon to have their appeal dismissed, potentially forcing them to incur additional costs and delays before they can substantively challenge the dismissal.
Checklists
Protecting Your TCPA Win (Movant)
- Confirm the order granting dismissal explicitly mentions the TCPA.
- Immediately file a motion and schedule a hearing for attorney’s fees and sanctions under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.009.
- If the court is slow to rule on fees, consider moving to sever the dismissed claims into a new cause number to create a final, appealable judgment.
- Monitor for a premature notice of appeal and prepare a Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction if the opponent files before the fee award is signed.
Avoiding the Procedural Trap (Respondent)
- Upon the granting of a TCPA motion against your client, do not file a notice of appeal immediately if a request for fees is pending.
- Object to the reasonableness and necessity of the attorney’s fees sought to prolong the interlocutory phase if strategic delay is required.
- Wait until the trial court signs a judgment that resolves both the dismissal and the specific dollar amount of fees/sanctions before initiating the appellate process.
Citation
Tumey v. Crawford, No. 14-25-01081-CV, 2026 WL 368149 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 3, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
The TCPA is frequently weaponized in Texas family law to shut down claims of “tortious interference with the PRMC” or defamation claims regarding statements made to CPS or during a custody evaluation. This ruling provides a strategic advantage to the party who successfully invokes the TCPA. By keeping the attorney’s fee issue “live” in the trial court, you effectively block the other side’s ability to seek appellate review of the dismissal. In a high-conflict divorce, this can be used to drain the opposing party’s resources and force a settlement of the underlying family law issues while the tort claims sit in a jurisdictional “limbo.” It essentially allows the prevailing party to control the timing of the appeal.
~~2162727b-cced-40cc-b9c0-0be3e12fd9a2~~
Share this content: