Opinion
05-23-00120-CV
02-21-2024
DANNIS DARRELL HOPSON, Appellant v. RHONDA S. HOPSON, Appellee
On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-10318. Justices Miskel and Kennedy participating.
Before Justices Nowell, Miskel, and Kennedy
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
Rhonda Hopson filed a petition for divorce from Dannis Hopson. The parties subsequently entered into a mediated settlement agreement (MSA), which was filed in April 2021. In January 2022, Dannis filed a motion and an amended motion to revoke the MSA on the grounds of fraud; in August 2022, Rhonda filed a motion to enforce the MSA and asked the family court to enter a final decree of divorce pursuant to the MSA. On August 3, 2022, the judge held an evidentiary hearing on Dannis's motion. At the end of the hearing, the judge stated she was not setting aside the MSA, she did not find fraud, and the parties should expect "an entry date within the next month." The judge signed the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce on August 10, 2022.
Because the parties share a surname, we will refer to them by their first names.
Dannis then filed this restricted appeal on February 3, 2023, arguing the trial court erred by entering the August 10 Agreed Final Decree of Divorce because it directly contradicts the record and contains false statements. To prevail on a restricted appeal, the appellant must establish four elements: (1) it filed the appeal within six months after judgment was signed; (2) it was a party to the lawsuit; (3) it did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment complained of, and it did not timely file any postjudgment motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) error is apparent on the face of the record. Pro-Fire & Sprinkler, L.L.C. v. The Law Co., Inc., 661 S.W.3d 156, 161 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2021, no pet.) (citing Pike-Grant v. Grant, 447 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2014) (per curiam); Tex.R.App.P. 26.1(c), 30). In this restricted appeal, Rhonda argues Dannis cannot meet the third element.
The Agreed Final Decree of Divorce states the trial court considered the matter on August 3, 2022. Dannis participated in the August 3 hearing - he testified and his attorney examined witnesses. Because the face of the record shows Dannis participated in the August 3 hearing, which was the hearing that resulted in the judgment about which he complains, Dannis cannot establish the third element necessary to prevail on a restricted appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss Dannis's restricted appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Ex parte E.H., 602 S.W.3d 486, 496 (Tex. 2020) ("We have specifically recognized that the first requirement (that the party timely file a notice of appeal within six months) and the third (that the party did not participate in the hearing) are jurisdictional.").
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.
Judgment entered.