in the Interest of S.R. and D.G., Children

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-10-00063-CV In the Interest of S.R. and D.G., Children, From the 82nd District Court Robertson County, Texas Trial Court No. 08-05-18,111-CV ORDER Appellant Kenneth Rollins, whose parental rights were terminated, filed a notice of appeal and points for appeal on November 23, 2009, but since then has taken no action in this appeal and failed to file a brief. We abated this appeal so the trial court could determine, among other things, whether Rollins desires to proceed with the appeal.[1] At a hearing, the trial court heard from Rollins’s trial attorney, who informed the trial court that Rollins did not appear at trial and has not responded to counsel’s phone calls and letters. The CPS caseworker for the children testified that Rollins never participated in any CPS services and that, based on her communications with Rollins’s mother, her understanding was that Rollins was not going to fight termination and did not wish to appeal. The trial court specifically found that Rollins has abandoned any intention to appeal the termination of his parental rights. Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant Kenneth Rollins’s appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Appeal dismissed in part Order issued and filed August 4, 2010 Do not publish [1] Appellant Christie Craven’s appeal remains pending. ; Associated Ready Mix, Inc. sued two of its shareholders, Floyd Kirk, Sr. and Floyd Kirk, Jr., for damages and the appointment of a receiver. Subsequently, Associated joined City National Bank as a defendant in the suit. Associated's claims against City National included fraud, deceptive trade practices, conversion, wrongful foreclosure, and breach of the duty of good faith. City National filed a counterclaim seeking to recover attorney's fees and expenses, claiming that Associated's DTPA claim was filed in bad faith and only for the purpose of harassment. On October 18, 1990, City National was granted a partial summary judgment that all of Associated's claims, except the fraud cause of action, be dismissed with prejudice. A summary judgment dismissing with prejudice Associated's fraud claim was entered on November 13. Associated has appealed, claiming that the court erroneously granted the summary judgments. City National filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, alleging that the judgments are interlocutory. We agree. Although City National received summary judgments dismissing with prejudice all of Associated's claims, City National's counterclaim is still pending before the court and has not been severed from Associated's causes of action. Generally, an appeal is proper only from a final judgment. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. Ann. § 51.012 (Vernon 1986). An interlocutory judgment, however, may be appealable in certain instances. See id. at § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 1991). All other interlocutory judgments are nonappealable. See Baker v. Yeager, 728 S.W.2d 895, 897 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ). A final judgment disposes of all parties and issues in the suit. Houston Health Clubs v. First Court of Appeals, 722 S.W.2d 692, 693 (Tex. 1986). Although a judgment following a trial on the merits is presumed to be final, that presumption does not apply in summary judgment cases. Id. A summary judgment which leaves a counterclaim unresolved is interlocutory and nonappealable. New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 678-79 (Tex. 1990); Tingley v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co., 712 S.W.2d 649, 650 (Tex. App.—Austin 1986, no writ). Because the summary judgments entered in this case did not dispose of City National's counterclaim, they are interlocutory and nonappealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Thomas, Justice Cummings and Justice Vance Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed October 15, 1991 Do not publish