the trial court erred in overlooking the finality of the January 6, 2006, judgment. On January 6, 2006, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Estate. A summary judgment that does not dispose of all the parties or issues is interlocutory. Schlipf v. Exxon Corp. 644 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Tex.1982). The judgment entered on January 6, 2006, disposed of the breach of contract and declaratory judgment issues. In addition to relief on the breach of contract and declaratory judgment issues, the Estate sought to recover its attorney’s fees. The summary judgment did not become final and appealable until January 23, 2006, when the trial court entered judgment on the breach of contract and the Estate’s attorney’s fees. See McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex.2001) (<HOLDING>). David’s third issue is overruled. ATTORNEY’S
holding summary judgment order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of the defendants claim for attorneys fees holding that the rule 12b6 ruling was not a final judgment and did not bind the district court at summary judgment holding that summary judgment order that does not dispose of all claims between parties does not confer appellate jurisdiction because it is not a final decision under 28 usc  1291 holding that because trial courts order did not dispose of the defendants counterclaim that order was not a final judgment that would support an appeal holding that an order is not a final appealable order when it does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants