In Re Estate of Harvey Lee Bryant v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 27, 2024
• Docket: 07-23-00441-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-23-00441-CV

IN RE ESTATE OF HARVEY LEE BRYANT, DECEASED

On Appeal from the 47th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 109720-D-CV, Honorable Steven Denny, Sitting by Assignment

February 27, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Jane A. Bryant, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s Order

on Motions to Distribute. We dismiss the untimely appeal for want of jurisdiction.

According to the limited record before the Court, Appellee, William H. Bryant,

Trustee of the Restated Bryant Family Trust, filed an application seeking a post-judgment

writ of garnishment against Appellant. After a trial on the matter, the trial court signed an

Order on Motions to Distribute on September 1, 2023.1 Because no post-judgment

1 Our analysis of the timeliness of Appellant’s notice of appeal presumes, without deciding, that the

trial court’s order is a final judgment as it followed a trial on the merits. See Vaughn v. Drennon, 324 S.W.3d motions or requests were filed, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due within thirty days

after the order was signed, i.e. by October 2, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 26.1(a).

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on November 22, 2023.

A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoking this Court’s jurisdiction. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616–17 (Tex. 1997). By

letter of January 26, 2024, we notified Appellant that her notice of appeal appeared

untimely and directed her to show how we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant

has filed a response but has not demonstrated grounds for continuing the appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a).

Per Curiam

560, 562 (Tex. 2010) (“We have long recognized a presumption of finality for judgments that follow a conventional trial on the merits.”).