Opinion issued July 7, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-26-00176-CV
STACY DEBNAM AND DR. MATT DEBNAM, Appellants
V.
WATTS POOL SERVICE, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 269th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2021-71293
MEMORANDUM OPINION
“Unless specifically authorized by statute, Texas appellate courts have
jurisdiction to review only final judgments.” Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge,
422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Munson, No.
01-25-00434-CV, 2025 WL 2956235, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 21, 2025, no pet.). “A judgment issued without a conventional trial is final for
purposes of appeal if and only if either it actually disposes of all claims and parties
then before the court, regardless of its language, or it states with unmistakable clarity
that it is a final judgment as to all claims and all parties.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
2025 WL 2956235, at *4 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Appellants’ Fourth Amended Petition asserts claims for breach of contract,
violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”), breach of express
and implied warranties, negligence, gross negligence, negligent hiring, private
nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and destruction of
property. It also asserts a claim under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments
Act and seeks “attorney’s fees, interest, and costs of court” pursuant to section
37.009 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
In its September 2, 2025 order, the trial court granted summary judgment on
Appellants’ claims for breach of the implied warranty of habitability, destruction of
property, negligence, and gross negligence, but denied summary judgment on the
claims for breach of contract, DTPA violations, breach of express warranty, fraud,
private nuisance, and exemplary damages. The order further noted that other
implied-warranty claims remained pending because they were not challenged. In its
December 8, 2025 order, the trial court granted summary judgment on the claims for
breach of contract, DTPA violations, breach of express and implied warranties,
2
private nuisance, and fraud. The court further ordered that Appellants “shall recover
nothing” from Appellee.
Neither summary-judgment order expressly addresses Appellants’ request for
attorney’s fees under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM. CODE § 37.009. But “[c]ourts must . . . expressly dispose of requests for
attorney’s fees under discretionary fee-shifting statutes that do not require the
requesting party to prevail.” Sealy Emergency Room, L.L.C. v. Free Standing
Emergency Room Managers of Am., L.L.C., 685 S.W.3d 816, 825–26 (Tex. 2024)
(citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 37.009). A claim for attorney’s fees under
the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act is an example of a discretionary fee-shifting
claim that a court must expressly address. Id.
We notified appellants that the appeal would be dismissed unless they
submitted a written response clearly explaining the basis for jurisdiction. Their
response failed to establish jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction and dismiss all
pending motions as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Guiney.
3