This appeal of a summary judgment in a bill of review case presents again the problem of the effect of severance orders on the filing deadlines necessary to preserve appeals. The trial court held McRoberts first counsel was negligent as a matter of law when he believed that a judgment combined with a severance order was interlocutory after the court of appeals clerk advised him that the order was "clearly interlocutory with respect to the parent cause [and that] nothing in the record reflects that any order at all has been entered in the severed cause." The court of appeals concluded McRoberts never had an appeal because his motion for new trial was submitted in the "parent cause" rather than the severed cause, even though the trial court clerk had neither assigned the new cause a number nor created a new file for the "severed" cause at the time the motion was due. ___ S.W.2d ___. We hold that the summary judgment evidence did not establish McRoberts negligence as a matter of law. We reverse the judgments of the courts below and remand the cause to the trial court.