Joseph Mullasseril Varughese v. Moly John Varughese

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: May 28, 2026
• Docket: 02-26-00252-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-26-00252-CV ___________________________

JOSEPH MULLASSERIL VARUGHESE, Appellant

V.

MOLY JOHN VARUGHESE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 360th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 360-742677-23

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Joseph Mullasseril Varughese, proceeding pro se, attempts to bring a

restricted appeal of the trial court’s October 24, 2025 final divorce decree. See Tex. R.

App. P. 26.1, 30. 1 Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss it.

To sustain a restricted appeal, the filing party must show that (1) he filed a

notice of the restricted appeal within six months after the judgment was signed; (2) he

was a party to the underlying lawsuit; (3) he did not participate in the hearing that

resulted in the judgment complained of and did not timely file any post-judgment

motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) error is

apparent on the face of the record. Ex parte E.H., 602 S.W.3d 486, 495 (Tex. 2020).

The first three requirements are jurisdictional and will preclude a party’s right to seek

relief by way of a restricted appeal. See id. at 497 (“An appellant who satisfies the first

three requirements establishes the court’s jurisdiction and must then establish error

from the face of the record to prevail in the restricted appeal.”).

Appellant filed his pro se notice of restricted appeal on April 22, 2026—within

six months of the trial court’s final divorce decree—but the record reflects that he

both participated in the hearing and timely filed a motion for new trial on October 28,

2025. We sent Appellant a letter expressing our concern that we do not have

jurisdiction over his restricted appeal because he has not met two of the jurisdictional

Appellant filed a document entitled “Writ of Error to Court of Appeals,” 1

which we construe as a notice of restricted appeal.

2 requirements. We warned him that unless he filed a response showing grounds for

continuing the appeal, it could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Appellant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for

continuing the appeal or otherwise establish the jurisdictional requirements.2

Because he cannot establish two of the jurisdictional requirements, a restricted

appeal is not available to Appellant. See Tex. R. App. P. 30; E.H., 602 S.W.3d at 497.

Accordingly, we dismiss this restricted appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam

Delivered: May 28, 2026

2 In his response, Appellant asserts (1) that this is not a restricted appeal but a “writ of error to the court of appeals,” see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.013, and (2) that he timely filed this appeal within thirty days of the trial court’s April 2, 2026 order denying his motion for new trial. As we stated in our jurisdiction letter, “[r]estricted appeals replace writ of error appeals to the court of appeals.” Tex. R. App. P. 30. As the trial court stated in its April 2, 2026 order, its plenary power expired on February 6, 2026. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c) (providing that motion for new trial will be overruled by operation of law “seventy-five days after the judgment was signed”), (e) (extending trial court’s plenary power until thirty days after motion for new trial overruled “either by written and signed order or by operation of law, whichever occurs first” (emphasis added)). And the order did not extend the notice-of- appeal deadline. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 (requiring that a notice of appeal “must be filed within 90 days after the judgment is signed if any party timely files” a motion for new trial (emphasis added)), 26.3 (providing that appellate court may grant fifteen-day extension).