in the Matter of the Marriage of Christine Ruth Slanker and Ted Eugene Slanker, Jr., and in the Interest of T. L. S., a Child

Opinion

                                                         In The

                                                Court of Appeals

                        Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                                                ______________________________

                                                             No. 06-11-00081-CV

                                                ______________________________

                             IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF

       CHRISTINE RUTH SLANKER AND TED EUGENE SLANKER, JR.,

                           AND IN THE INTEREST OF T.L.S., A CHILD

                                            On Appeal from the County Court at Law

                                                             Lamar County, Texas

                                                            Trial Court No. 77863

                                          Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

                                        Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

                                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Ted Eugene Slanker, Jr., has appealed ostensibly^[1] from the trial court’s denial of his motion to enforce a judgment nunc pro tunc, related to the property division ordered in the divorce proceeding between Ted and Christine Ruth Slanker.  The divorce and property division have been the subject of a separate appeal to this Court, which appeal has now been decided.

            Because we have now decided the other appeal, by reversing and remanding the property division for a new trial, there remains no judgment to enforce.  A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings, including the appeal.  Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. 2005).

            We dismiss this appeal as moot.

                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                                    Chief Justice

Date Submitted:          December 19, 2011    

Date Decided:             December 20, 2011

---

^[1]Counsel’s discussion of the relief sought in this appeal appears to seek relitigation of the division of property, based on allegations that appellee lied or misstated facts at trial and that the trial court erred in determining where a particular sum of money had been deposited.  The discussion is not directed at the issue stated in the brief.  The brief also contains no argument directed at the stated issue and no citation to any supporting authority, in violation of Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.