in the Interest of T. M., a Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 12, 2015
• Docket: 13-14-00701-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-14-00701-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF T.M., A CHILD ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 36th District Court of Bee County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Frances B. Shepherd, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order

entered by the 36th District Court of Bee County, Texas, in cause no. B-14-1335-CV on

November 4, 2014 denying her petition in intervention. Upon review of the documents

before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a

final appealable order. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that

steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1,

42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

In appellant’s response to this Court’s directive, appellant stated that a hearing in the

above-referenced matter was held on November 4, 2014, and “[a]lthough the judgment

was pronounced, there was never an Order entered or executed by the Trial Judge.” Our

review of the clerk’s record in this cause likewise reveals no written and signed order.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure calculate the period within which one

must perfect an appeal from the time the judgment is signed, not from the filing of a

pleading. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The appellate timetable does not

commence to run other than by signed, written order, even when the signing of such an

order is purely ministerial. Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co., 907 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 1995).

A trial court's oral pronouncement and docket entry are not an acceptable substitute for

a written order. Emerald Oaks Hotel/Conf. Ctr., Inc. v. Zardenetta, 776 S.W.2d 577, 578

(Tex. 1989) (orig. proceeding); McCormack v. Guillot, 597 S.W.2d 345, 346 (Tex. 1980)

(orig. proceeding); see also Five Star Dev. Resort Communities, LLC v. Istar Fin., Inc.,

No. 08-11-00299-CV, 2011 WL 6209366, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Dec. 7, 2011, no

pet.) (mem.op.).

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to

correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for

want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); see also TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §

22.220(c) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.)(“Each court of appeals may, on affidavit

or otherwise, as the court may determine, ascertain the matters of fact that are necessary

to the proper exercise of its jurisdiction.”). Without a written ruling, appellant may not

2 appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1; In re Johnston, 79 S.W.3d 195, 198 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding); see also In re Nationwide Credit, Inc., No. 13-10-

00007-CV, 2010 WL 596809, at *4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 18, 2010, no pet.)

(mem. op.). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 12th day of February, 2015.