Opinion
NO. 14-19-00970-CV
04-09-2020
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF JOSE N. MARADIAGA AND MARIA MARTINEZ
On Appeal from the 505th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 16-DCV-234636
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an attempted appeal from a letter ruling dated November 8, 2019. There is no finality language in the purported decree. See In re R.R.K., 590 S.W.3d 535, 543 (Tex. 2019) (discussing Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001) ("This judgment finally disposes of all parties and all claims and is appealable."). Moreover, the ruling expressly anticipates the preparation of a "Final Decree of Divorce and all necessary documents to effectuate the division of property and obligations — either counsel may set for entry as necessary." The underlying proceeding includes a suit affecting the parent-child relationship and the record contains agreed temporary orders signed March 18, 2018. The November 8, 2019, ruling addresses only the division of property, debt, and attorney's fees.
Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until a final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
On January 14, 2020, this court notified the parties of our intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless on or before January 24, 2020, appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed a response.
Citing In re B.D., appellant contended the ruling substantially complied with the requisites of a final judgment. No. 05-17-00674-CV, 2017 WL 3765848 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 31, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.), abrogated by In re R.R.K, 590 S.W.3d 535 (Tex. 2019). In re B.D. is distinguishable because the ruling in this case requires further action to memorialize it. 2017 WL 3765848, *1. In the response appellant failed to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal.
On February 25, 2020, we abated the appeal to permit clarification by the trial court. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 206. The time to file a supplemental clerk's record demonstrating that this court has jurisdiction over this appeal expired. In accordance with our order, we reinstate the appeal and dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain.