Perricone v. Perricone, 11-25-00259-CV, June 18, 2026.
On appeal from 29th District Court, Palo Pinto County, Texas
Synopsis
The Eleventh Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because the trial court had not entered a final judgment or an interlocutory order made appealable by statute. The court concluded that the orders at issue did not dispose of all parties and claims, did not sever a party to create finality, and did not include unequivocal finality language; the court declined to retain or abate the appeal and instead granted Appellant’s alternative request for dismissal without prejudice.
Relevance to Family Law
For Texas family law litigators, this opinion is a useful reminder that interlocutory frustration does not create appellate jurisdiction. In divorce, SAPCR, and property-related litigation, orders addressing nonsuit timing, pleading challenges, or dismissal of fewer than all claims against fewer than all parties are not appealable unless they actually create a final judgment, are severed into a final case, or fall within a statute authorizing interlocutory review. The case is especially relevant when family-law pleadings include multiple parties or mixed claims, including claims identified by the court here as including a cause of action under Chapter 42 of the Family Code.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal from an order denying his motion for leave to file a notice of nonsuit out of time, to abate a Rule 91a hearing, and for clarification and extension of time. When the appeal was docketed, the court advised that it did not appear the trial court had entered an appealable order and requested a response showing grounds to continue the appeal.
In response, the appellant contended that the order was appealable as a “partial final judgment” and that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed as to “the subset of defendants with pending Rule 91a motions.” The court deemed the notice of appeal prematurely filed under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and directed the parties and the trial court clerk’s office to notify the court immediately upon entry of an appealable order or final judgment.
The appellant later filed another notice of appeal from an August 22 order granting a defendant’s Rule 91a motion. That order dismissed the appellant’s causes of action against that defendant “save and except [Appellant’s] cause(s) of action under Chapter 42 of the Texas Family Code.” The appellate court again informed the appellant that the trial court still had not entered an appealable order.
After further notice to the parties that the appeal would be dismissed unless an appealable order or judgment was obtained by May 29, the appellant filed a status advisory and motion asking the court to “retain or abate” the appeal because finality remained disputed in the trial court and because a separate Rule 145 appeal was, in his view, directly related to the finality and procedural posture of this appeal. Alternatively, he requested dismissal without prejudice.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction when the trial court had not entered a final judgment or an interlocutory order specifically made appealable by statute.
- Whether the trial court’s orders were appealable when they did not dispose of all parties and claims, did not sever a party to create a final judgment, and did not include unequivocal finality language.
- Whether the appeal should be retained or abated, or instead dismissed without prejudice.
Rules Applied
The court relied on the settled rule that Texas appellate courts may review only final judgments or interlocutory orders specifically made appealable by statute. For that proposition, the court cited Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
The court also relied on the current finality framework stated in Sealy Emergency Room, L.L.C. v. Free Standing Emergency Room Managers of Am., L.L.C., 685 S.W.3d 816, 820 (Tex. 2024), and In re C.K.M., 709 S.W.3d 613, 617–18 (Tex. 2025). Under those authorities, an order or judgment becomes final when it either disposes of all parties and claims before the trial court or includes unequivocal finality language expressly disposing of all claims and parties. Quoting Lehmann through C.K.M., the court noted that the language must “leave no doubt about the court’s intention” to enter a final judgment.
The court also cited In re C.K.M., 709 S.W.3d at 619, and Ganesan v. Reeves, 236 S.W.3d 816, 817 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, pet. denied), including the statement that “Rule 27.1 does not contemplate an appellate place holder until there is a final appealable judgment.”
Finally, the court dismissed under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a).
Application
The court’s analysis was straightforward and entirely jurisdictional in the appellate sense identified by the opinion: it examined whether any order in the trial court was presently appealable. The answer was no. The order denying leave to file a notice of nonsuit out of time and related relief did not resolve the entire case. Nor did the later Rule 91a order, because that order dismissed claims against one defendant while expressly preserving at least the appellant’s Chapter 42 Family Code claims against that defendant.
Just as importantly, the opinion noted three missing features that often determine finality in multi-claim, multi-party litigation: complete disposition of all parties and claims, severance creating a final judgment in a separate cause, or unequivocal finality language. According to the court, none of those existed here. Because the record still lacked an appealable order or final judgment, the court stated that it was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal at that time.
The court’s discussion of Rule 27 did not change that outcome. The court had previously deemed the notice of appeal prematurely filed under Rule 27 and had directed the parties to notify it if an appealable order or final judgment was later entered. But when no such order was entered, the premature-filing posture did not permit the appeal to continue. On the appellant’s later motion, the court declined to retain or abate the appeal and instead granted Appellant’s alternative request for dismissal without prejudice.
The court also clarified the limited effect of its disposition. It expressly stated that the dismissal did not constitute a ruling on the merits of the appellant’s appellate complaints regarding the orders identified in this appeal. It further stated that the dismissal had no bearing on the Rule 145 contest because that issue had already been disposed of in the separate appeal cited by the court.
Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial court had not entered a final judgment or an interlocutory order specifically made appealable by statute. The court explained that the orders at issue did not dispose of all parties or all claims in the lawsuit, did not sever a party to create a final judgment, and did not include unequivocal finality language.
The court also held, in disposing of the pending procedural request before it, that dismissal without prejudice was the proper course. More specifically, the court declined to retain or abate the appeal and instead granted Appellant’s alternative request for dismissal without prejudice to his right to file a notice of appeal after entry of an appealable order or final judgment in the trial court.
Practical Application
Family law litigators should treat this opinion as a filing-sequence case. If your divorce, SAPCR, enforcement, reimbursement, property, or related tort pleading involves multiple claims, multiple parties, or piecemeal dismissal orders, do not assume an order is appealable merely because it finally resolves a discrete motion or fully disposes of one slice of the case.
Several recurring family-law settings raise this problem. A Rule 91a order may eliminate some claims but leave others pending. A nonsuit dispute may resolve whether a pleading remains live, yet still not resolve the entire case. A dismissal as to one respondent, one third party, or one set of claims in a property-centered family-law dispute may feel functionally complete but still lack appellate finality. In those settings, counsel should confirm whether the order disposes of every party and every claim, whether severance is needed to create a separately appealable judgment, and whether the order contains the kind of unequivocal finality language described in Sealy Emergency Room and In re C.K.M.
Strategically, this matters because a premature appellate filing may preserve nothing useful if no appealable order ever comes into existence during the relevant period. This opinion does not say Rule 27 is meaningless; it does show that premature-filing treatment does not itself manufacture appellate jurisdiction. If finality remains disputed in the trial court, the better practice is usually to solve finality there—through a clarifying final judgment, a severance, or both—before expecting merits review in the court of appeals.
Checklists
Finality Review Before Filing Notice of Appeal
- Confirm whether the order disposes of all claims currently pleaded.
- Confirm whether the order disposes of all parties, including any joined parties or third parties.
- Check whether the order expressly preserves any claims, as the Rule 91a order did here with Chapter 42 claims.
- Determine whether the order includes unequivocal finality language expressly disposing of all claims and parties.
- If fewer than all claims or parties are resolved, evaluate whether severance is necessary to create a final judgment.
Rule 91a Orders in Family-Law-Adjacent Litigation
- Read the dismissal language carefully for carve-outs or surviving claims.
- Do not assume dismissal of claims against one defendant makes the order appealable.
- Compare the order against the live pleadings to verify whether anything remains pending.
- If the order is intended to be final as to a discrete controversy, consider requesting severance.
Nonsuit and Related Procedural Orders
- Treat orders denying nonsuit-related relief as nonfinal unless they also dispose of the full case or are made appealable by statute.
- Review whether any remaining claims, parties, or requests for relief are still pending.
- If the trial court’s intent is to end the case, obtain a written order that clearly does so.
- If the case is not over, continue litigating in the trial court rather than assuming immediate appellate review is available.
Protecting the Appellate Record on Finality
- After any potentially dispositive order, compare the order to the docket and live pleadings.
- Ask whether a final judgment has actually been signed.
- If finality is unclear, seek clarification from the trial court promptly.
- If necessary, request a severance order to convert a partial disposition into an appealable final judgment.
- Avoid relying on a premature notice of appeal as a substitute for obtaining an appealable order.
When Finality Is Still Disputed
- Identify precisely which claims and parties remain unresolved.
- Present the trial court with a proposed final judgment or severance order that removes ambiguity.
- If another related appeal exists, do not assume it resolves finality in the current appeal.
- If no appealable order exists, consider whether dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate appellate outcome while finality is addressed below.
Citation
Perricone v. Perricone, No. 11-25-00259-CV, memorandum opinion, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Eastland June 18, 2026, no pet.).
Full Opinion
~~08911564-65af-44d1-aac4-ab8ac884d18d~~
Share this content: