Final-Judgment Jurisdiction Bars Premature Appeal | Perricone (2026)

Perricone v. Perricone, 11-25-00259-CV, June 18, 2026.

On appeal from 29th District Court, Palo Pinto County, Texas

Synopsis

A notice of appeal cannot bootstrap appellate jurisdiction where the trial court has not yet signed a final judgment or an interlocutory order made appealable by statute. In Perricone, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that orders denying nonsuit-related relief and partially granting a Rule 91a motion were not appealable because they did not dispose of all parties and claims, were not severed, and did not contain unequivocal finality language; dismissal for want of jurisdiction was therefore required.

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family-law litigators, Perricone is a reminder that appellate timing problems often arise in exactly the kinds of procedural skirmishes common in divorce, SAPCR, modification, and property cases: partial dismissals, denials of nonsuit efforts, fee disputes, and orders that resolve some parties or some theories but leave Chapter 6, Chapter 7, Chapter 42, or conservatorship issues pending. In multi-claim or multi-party family litigation—especially where tort, fiduciary-duty, reimbursement, fraudulent-transfer, or third-party claims are joined—counsel cannot assume that a significant interim ruling is immediately appealable. Unless the order is statutorily appealable, severs the resolved portion into a separate cause, or unmistakably disposes of every remaining party and claim, the court of appeals will treat the appeal as premature and dismiss it.

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. The court of appeals immediately questioned jurisdiction because the record did not show an appealable order. In response, the appellant argued the order functioned as a “partial final judgment” and that his notice should be treated as prematurely filed under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 with respect to a subset of defendants.

He later filed a second notice of appeal from an earlier order granting one defendant’s Rule 91a motion to dismiss. But that Rule 91a order expressly dismissed claims against that defendant except for claims under Chapter 42 of the Family Code, meaning at least some claims remained pending even as to that defendant. The appellate court repeatedly advised the parties that no appealable order appeared in the record and even gave them an opportunity to obtain one. Instead, the appellant sought retention or abatement of the appeal while finality remained disputed in the trial court and while a separate Rule 145 appeal was pending.

The Eastland court ultimately concluded that nothing in the record established finality. The orders at issue did not dispose of all parties and claims, did not sever the adjudicated matters into a separate cause, and did not contain unequivocal finality language. On that basis, the court dismissed the appeal without prejudice.

Issues Decided

• Whether a notice of appeal may proceed under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 when the trial court has not yet signed a final judgment or an interlocutory order made appealable by statute.
• Whether an order denying leave to file a notice of nonsuit out of time, to abate a Rule 91a hearing, and for clarification or extension is appealable absent finality.
• Whether an order partially granting a Rule 91a motion is appealable when it leaves claims pending, including Family Code Chapter 42 claims.
• Whether an appellate court may retain or abate a premature appeal where finality remains unresolved in the trial court.

Rules Applied

Texas appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to two categories of orders:

• Final judgments.
• Interlocutory orders expressly made appealable by statute.

The court relied principally on these authorities:

• Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001), for the baseline rule that appellate courts review only final judgments and statutorily appealable interlocutory orders.
• 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), for the proposition that a judgment becomes final either by actually disposing of all parties and claims or by including unequivocal finality language expressly disposing of all claims and parties.
• In re C.K.M., 709 S.W.3d 613, 617–19 (Tex. 2025), reinforcing that finality language must leave no doubt about the trial court’s intent to render a final judgment.
• Ganesan v. Reeves, 236 S.W.3d 816, 817 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, pet. denied), for the point that Rule 27.1 does not authorize an appellate “placeholder” in the absence of some eventual final appealable judgment.

The opinion also referenced Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 27, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145, and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a).

Application

The court’s analysis was straightforward and jurisdictional. It accepted that Rule 27 can sometimes save a premature notice of appeal, but only when an appealable judgment or order is later signed. Rule 27 does not create appellate jurisdiction where none exists; it merely relates a notice forward to a later-triggering appealable event. That distinction mattered here.

The first challenged order denied nonsuit-related and scheduling-related relief. Nothing about that order disposed of all claims as to all parties, and no statute made it immediately appealable. The second challenged order—granting a Rule 91a motion—also failed to create appellate jurisdiction because it expressly preserved at least one category of claims under Family Code Chapter 42. So even with respect to that defendant, the order was not a complete disposition. And as to the case overall, other parties and claims indisputably remained active.

Just as important, the trial court had not severed the adjudicated claims into a separate cause, which might have converted a partial disposition into an appealable final judgment in the severed action. Nor did either order contain the kind of unequivocal finality language required by Lehmann, Sealy Emergency Room, and C.K.M. The court therefore rejected the notion that the notices of appeal could simply remain on file while the parties continued litigating finality below. Because no appealable order existed, there was nothing for the court of appeals to retain or abate. Dismissal without prejudice was the only proper disposition.

Holding

The court held that a premature notice of appeal under Rule 27 does not preserve an appeal when the trial court has not signed a final judgment or an interlocutory order made appealable by statute. Rule 27 is not a mechanism for warehousing a future appeal in the court of appeals while finality is still being sorted out in the trial court.

The court also held that the orders identified by the appellant were not appealable. The order denying leave to file a notice of nonsuit out of time, to abate a Rule 91a hearing, and for clarification and extension did not dispose of all parties and claims and was not independently appealable by statute.

The court further held that the Rule 91a dismissal order was likewise nonfinal because it expressly left Chapter 42 Family Code claims pending and did not resolve the entire case. Without disposition of all claims and all parties, a severance, or unequivocal finality language, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.

Finally, the court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, making clear that the dismissal was not a ruling on the merits and did not impair the appellant’s ability to file a new notice of appeal after the trial court enters an appealable order or final judgment.

Practical Application

In family litigation, Perricone matters most in cases that sprawl beyond the standard divorce or SAPCR framework. When one spouse sues third parties, pleads business torts, seeks declaratory relief, adds reimbursement or constructive-fraud theories, or asserts Chapter 42 family-violence-related claims, the odds of a nonfinal partial disposition increase. A Rule 91a order knocking out some causes of action may feel outcome-determinative, but unless it disposes of every live claim against every party—or is severed—it is usually not yet appealable.

The case also underscores a recurrent trap with nonsuits in family cases. Lawyers sometimes assume a denied nonsuit request, or a ruling controlling the timing or scope of nonsuit, can be taken up immediately because it has significant strategic consequences. Perricone confirms that practical significance is not the test; jurisdiction turns on finality or statutory authorization. The same point applies to orders concerning abatement, clarification, extension, and many procedural rulings that shape trial posture but do not conclude the case.

For appellate preservation, the lesson is to solve finality in the trial court, not the court of appeals. If you want immediate review of a partial dismissal in a divorce-related business-entity dispute or a third-party property claim, consider seeking severance. If you believe a judgment was intended to be final, ensure the order contains unequivocal finality language that leaves no doubt all claims and parties are disposed of. And when claims remain pending by express carve-out—as happened here with Chapter 42 claims—assume there is no appellate jurisdiction unless and until the remainder is resolved or severed.

Practitioners should also be cautious when multiple collateral proceedings are unfolding at once, such as Rule 145 indigency contests, sanctions issues, or post-dismissal fee disputes. The existence of a related appeal does not manufacture jurisdiction over a separate nonfinal order. Each appellate vehicle must stand on its own jurisdictional footing.

Checklists

Finality Review Before Filing a Notice of Appeal

• Confirm whether the order disposes of all claims against all parties.
• Review the live pleadings, not just the motion and order, to identify any claims expressly left pending.
• Check whether any third-party respondents, intervenors, or joined entities remain in the case.
• Determine whether the order includes unequivocal finality language expressly disposing of all parties and claims.
• Verify whether the order is one of the limited interlocutory orders made appealable by statute.
• If the ruling is only partial, evaluate whether a severance should be requested before filing a notice of appeal.

Rule 91a in Family-Law Cases

• Compare the Rule 91a order to the operative petition or counterpetition line by line.
• Confirm whether the order dismisses all claims against the target party or only selected causes of action.
• Watch for carve-outs preserving Family Code claims, reimbursement theories, declaratory claims, or attorney’s-fee requests.
• Remember that a partial Rule 91a dismissal is ordinarily not appealable absent severance or true finality.
• If immediate review is strategically necessary, move to sever the dismissed claims into a separate cause.

Nonsuit and Procedural Orders

• Do not assume that denial of nonsuit-related relief is immediately appealable.
• Treat abatement, extension, clarification, and scheduling orders as presumptively interlocutory unless a statute says otherwise.
• If the order materially affects case posture, build the record and preserve error, but do not confuse preservation with appealability.
• Reassess appellate deadlines after a later final judgment is signed.

Trial-Court Steps to Create an Appealable Order

• Ask the trial court to sign a final judgment that expressly disposes of all parties and claims.
• If only some claims or parties have been resolved, move to sever those matters into a separate cause number.
• Draft proposed language that tracks Lehmann, Sealy Emergency Room, and In re C.K.M. finality principles.
• Eliminate ambiguity about pending fee requests, sanctions, costs, and residual Family Code claims.
• Ensure the clerk’s record will plainly show the basis for appellate jurisdiction.

Avoiding the Premature-Appeal Trap

• Do not rely on Rule 27 as a placeholder when no appealable order exists.
• Calendar follow-up review of the trial-court docket if finality is expected later.
• If the court of appeals issues a jurisdictional inquiry, answer with a record-based explanation of finality, severance, or statutory appealability.
• If no appealable order exists, consider dismissal without prejudice rather than expending resources defending nonexistent jurisdiction.
• File a fresh notice of appeal once an actual final judgment or appealable interlocutory order is signed.

Citation

Perricone v. Perricone, No. 11-25-00259-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Eastland June 18, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~08911564-65af-44d1-aac4-ab8ac884d18d~~