Opinion
02-24-00207-CV
06-20-2024
Danny Duane Cochran, Appellant v. Helen Marie Cochran, Appellee
On Appeal from the 325th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 325-611432-17
Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Per Curiam
Appellant Danny Duane Cochran and his then-wife Helen Marie Mahoneywere divorced in May 2017. The trial court's amended decree of divorce is on a form promulgated by TexasLawHelp.org. See TexasLawHelp.org, https://texaslawhelp.org. The copy of the amended decree that Appellant submitted with his notice of appeal states that each party was ordered to pay all past, present, and future bills in that party's name. Under the section for "Wife's Community Property," the form included a space for the parties to list the property that "Wife will also keep." In that space was written, "House for her, kids[,] and grandkids[.] He will keep in his name (and pay all bills) or hers or both but he pays taxes and insurance."
Appellee's last name during the marriage was Cochran, but in the divorce decree, she resumed her previous name.
Appellant now wishes to modify the terms of the amended decree, and to that end, he has filed a notice of appeal from the 2017 amended decree. However, any notice of appeal from the amended decree was due on June 8, 2017. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this court does not have jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1; In re K.M.Z., 178 S.W.3d 432, 433 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). Accordingly, we notified Appellant that unless he or another party filed with the court a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we could dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3.
Appellant has filed a response. He claims that in addition to paying the house-related bills referenced in the decree, he has also been paying for "food, entertainment, [and] credit card bills." He states that his ex-wife has told him that she is scared of him and "is getting or already has a restraining order against [him]," and he wishes to "be relieved of taking care of everything that [he] was ordered to do." This response provides the reasons that Appellant wants to challenge the amended decree, but it does not show any basis on which this court could exercise jurisdiction over the appeal.
Because Appellant did not file his notice of appeal by the applicable deadline, this court does not have jurisdiction over his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1, 26.1; K.M.Z., 178 S.W.3d at 433. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).