From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mcintyre v. Nexis

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Oct 21, 2011
No. 05-11-00809-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 21, 2011)

Summary

dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because appellant failed to provide written order reflecting court's ruling and " record of the court's ruling by the court reporter is not an acceptable substitute for a written order"

Summary of this case from Ricks v. Dorsey

Opinion

No. 05-11-00809-CV

Opinion Filed October 21, 2011.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. CC-04-10797-E.

Before Justices MOSELEY, LANG, and MYERS.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


By notice of appeal filed June 27, 2011, Bill McIntyre challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss order appointing receiver and compelling discovery. Because McIntyre has failed to bring forward a final appealable judgment or order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

The record reflects the trial court heard McIntyre's motion May 27, 2011. The record, however, does not contain a copy of any order on the motion, and the district court clerk has informed us no order was in fact signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(a)(5) (appellate record must contain copy of court's judgment or appealed order). Because our jurisdiction is fundamental and invoked only upon the timely filing of a notice of appeal from a signed final judgment or recognized interlocutory order, we directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing our jurisdiction over the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 27.1(a); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 n. 12 (Tex. 2001); K S Interests, Inc. v. Tex. Am. Bank/Dallas, 749 S.W.2d 887, 890 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1988, writ denied). McIntyre responded; appellee Lexis Nexis did not.

In his letter brief, McIntyre acknowledges the court's ruling was not reduced to writing and signed by the trial court. He contends, however, that no order is necessary because the court's ruling was recorded by the court reporter. Alternatively, he argues "the trial judge should be able to sign . . . a Nunc Pro Tunc order."

A record of the court's ruling by the court reporter, however, is not an acceptable substitute for a written order. See Capital Fin. Commerce AG v. Sinopec Overseas Oil Gas, Ltd., 260 S.W.3d 67, 84 n. 21 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (written judgment or order signed by trial judge is official judgment of court) (citing Harrington v. Harrington, 742 S.W.2d 722, 724 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ)). And, while the trial court may have jurisdiction to sign an order on McIntyre's motion, our jurisdiction cannot be invoked without a signed judgment or order and nothing before us indicates an order is imminent. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b), 27.1(a); Ganesan v. Reeves, 236 S.W.3d 816, 817 (Tex. App.-Waco 2007, pet. denied) (appellate court not required to hold appeal open until appealable judgment or order is signed).

Because we have no signed judgment or appealable order, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal and dismiss it. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).


Summaries of

Mcintyre v. Nexis

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Oct 21, 2011
No. 05-11-00809-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 21, 2011)

dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because appellant failed to provide written order reflecting court's ruling and " record of the court's ruling by the court reporter is not an acceptable substitute for a written order"

Summary of this case from Ricks v. Dorsey
Case details for

Mcintyre v. Nexis

Case Details

Full title:BILL MCINTYRE, Appellant v. LEXIS NEXIS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Oct 21, 2011

Citations

No. 05-11-00809-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 21, 2011)

Citing Cases

Ricks v. Dorsey

But Ricks has not provided the written order from which he appeals. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014;…

P. S.-C. v. The Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.

Because we reversed the trial court's judgment of July 20, 2020, there is no final judgment in this case…