Opinion
14-24-00337-CV
12-19-2024
BARBARA WINFIELD-PUGH, Appellant v. FREDERICK LOUIS PUGH, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23-FD-0186.
Panel consists of Christopher, Chief Justice and Wise and Jewell, Justices.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
This is the second appeal to this court in connection with a divorce proceeding between Barbara Winfield-Pugh and Frederick Louis Pugh. In the first appeal, No. 14-23-00501-CV, Frederick appealed the trial court's June 21, 2023 judgment granting Barbara's petition for divorce and awarding a property division. Frederick had not appeared in the trial court proceeding resulting in the judgment, and he argued on appeal that Barbara failed to present legally sufficient evidence to support her proposed property division during the trial court hearing. We agreed with Frederick, sustained his issue, and held that Barbara had not presented legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court's property division contained in the divorce decree. Pugh v. Winfield-Pugh, No. 14-23-00501-CV, 2024 WL 1633678, at *3 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 16, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.). Our judgment affirmed the divorce but remanded the case for a new trial on the property division. No party filed a motion for rehearing in our court or filed a petition for review in the supreme court. We issued our mandate on September 10, 2024.
On April 27, 2024, eleven days after we issued our opinion and judgment in the first appeal, Barbara (who does not have an attorney and is representing herself) filed in the trial court a document entitled: "Appellee Request for an Appeal." In this document, Barbara stated that she intended to provide additional documents in support of the property division. Although Barbara characterized this document as a "request for an appeal," no new trial or other activity had occurred in the trial court following our remand. Nor had the trial judge signed a new judgment. Thus, by April 27, 2024 (and still to this day) there was (and is) no new final judgment to appeal. Yet, the trial court clerk treated Barbara's April 27 "request for an appeal" as a second notice of appeal, and this court docketed the present case as a new appeal, No. 14-24-00337-CV.
Once the clerk's record was filed on September 6, 2024, we determined that no final judgment existed over which this court could exercise jurisdiction in this case. We notified the parties on November 21, 2024 that it appeared we lacked jurisdiction of this appeal, and we informed the parties that the court would dismiss the appeal unless any party demonstrated jurisdiction by December 4, 2024. No party has demonstrated that this court has jurisdiction.
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. 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 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).
We remanded the case for a new trial on the property division. If Barbara desires to present additional evidence in support of her proposed property division, she may do so during a new hearing before the trial court. As the record now stands, that has not happened and no new final judgment exists disposing of the property division claim.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.