A Mother Hubbard Clause Is Not Enough
February 5, 2013On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment for the appellant on count one and for apellee on counts two and four, but said nothing about counts three and five other than invoking a Mother Hubbard clause in the order, which reads: “All relief requested and not expressly granted herein is hereby denied.” With its order, the trial court granted appellee permanent injunctive relief, exonerated appellee’s bond, and taxed costs against appellant.
On appeal, the Court avoided the substantive issues and only addressed its own jurisdiction. Following Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001), the Court held that the trial court’s order was not “final” because it neglected to address claims three and five, and because the Mother Hubbard clause and the permanent injunction did not suffice to render those claims final.
