Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Supreme Court of Texas

proceeded with separately.
In order to conclude the trial Court abused it’s discretion, this Court must determine two
issues:
1. Was the judgment signed by the Honorable Judge Solomon Casseb III a final
judgment, and;
2. Did the Honorable Judge David A. Berchelmann abuse his discretion in granting a
severance after a final judgment was entered?
Is the Judgment entered by the Honorable Solomon Casseb III on September 26,
2011 final?
A judgment issued without a conventional trial is final for purposes of appeal if and
only if it either actually disposes of all claims and parties then before the Court,
regardless of its language or the order states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final
judgment as to all claims and all parties. Lehmann v. Harris, 39 S.W.3d 191, 192 (Tex.
2001). When a judgment, not intrinsically interlocutory in character, is rendered and
entered in a case regularly set for conventional trial on the merits, no order for a separate
trial of issues having been entered . . ., it will be presumed for appeal purposes that the
Court intended to, and did, dispose of all parties legally before it and of all issues made
by the pleadings between such parties. Id. at 198 citing North East Independent School
District v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. 1966). Mr. Amsberry filed a Plea in
Intervention prior to the entry of the Final Decree of Divorce. His claims were before the
Court at the time the final order was signed by the Court. The question then becomes
whether the judgment entered by Hon. Judge Solomon Casseb III was final or
7