Cause No. 24-CV-0102
A long-running assessment and counterclaim dispute with an important appellate distinction: the first appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, not decided on the merits.
The Wharf at Clear Lake Slip Maintenance Association filed the underlying action in the 122nd District Court. Eric Springstun responded with counterclaims against the Association and individual board members and continued to challenge both substantive and procedural issues as the case developed.
No. 01-24-00711-CV was dismissed as premature.
In February 2025, the First Court of Appeals dismissed Springstun’s attempted appeal from the September 2024 plea-to-the-jurisdiction order because the order was interlocutory. The appellate court explained that the Association’s claims against Springstun remained pending and that Springstun’s counterclaims against individual board members also remained pending.
That is an important distinction. The appellate court did not affirm the merits of the dismissed counterclaims in that proceeding. It held that the court lacked appellate jurisdiction at that stage because the order did not dispose of all claims and parties.
Plea to jurisdiction
The trial court dismissed counterclaims against the Association, while other claims and parties remained in the case at the time of the first attempted appeal.Appeal dismissed — not affirmed
The First Court of Appeals dismissed No. 01-24-00711-CV because there was no final or otherwise appealable order before it.Later proceedings continued
The case later proceeded to a final judgment and a new appeal, No. 01-26-00448-CV, creating a separate appellate record and a different procedural posture.
A later appeal has focused in part on access to the appellate record.
The later appeal, No. 01-26-00448-CV, followed the final judgment. Orders issued during 2026 addressed Springstun’s statement of inability to afford costs and questions surrounding payment for the reporter’s record. Those record-access issues are procedurally significant because an appellate court can review only the materials properly placed before it.
The site will continue to distinguish the trial-court result from the separate questions of appellate jurisdiction, record preparation, cost determinations, and review of preserved issues.
Read what the First Court of Appeals actually said.
The full February 20, 2025 memorandum opinion is stored directly in this site’s Document Archive. It provides the clearest source for why the first appeal was dismissed and what claims remained pending at that time.