McMaryion, Yolanda v. Scott, Trent Dell

Opinion

l)I’’lISSIl) Oiiiioii iS%Il4(l N1 it $)Il)L’I .!1, .!012.

In the .!mirt t’i[ Appiitii .Fi1th 0i!3trict tit at Uaq

No. 0%—I 2.h)03 I )—CV

EN TI 1K I NTKRI:s’F 01’ T.S, J k., A (:11 I LI)

)n Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, I’exas [nat ( ‘on nt Cause No. I)l’—Ud— 1 4797—R

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices (1 Neil I. ltz( gerald, and Lang—Micrs )pinion By .liisticc ( )‘NeiIl

This appeal, brought by Mother, follows the Attorney (eneral of Texas’s March 6, 20) 2

nonsuit of its motion to revoke lather’s community supervision for tat lure to pay child support.

Because Mother has tailed to bring forward a final appealable udgrnent or order, we dismiss the

appeal for want ut’jurisdict ion. e’e lEX. R. Ai’P. P. 42.3(a).

)ur jurisdicth m is fundamental and never presumed. Braslicar v. t utoria Gardens o/

MeKiniiev, L..LC., 302 S.W.3d 542, 546 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2009, no pet.); K & S Interests, Inc.

i Tue. .ini. BankMath,.v, 749 S.W.2d X7, 0() (Tex. App. Dallas I t )X. writ denied). ( ienerally,

suhect to a few mostly statutory exceptions. we have jurisdiction only over appeals tiurn final

judments, that is, judgments that dispose of all pending parties and claims in the record. See

I.uIuhlLuIn i’. IIar-( ‘on Cu,y’ ,3o) . W 3d 19 I. I 95 ( l’ex. 20() I ). \Vhcn. as here, a plaintiff nonsui ts ease md in patties or ats etusin heflre the oat eunri, the oler nt disimssal is the tinal

hij)ositi\ e ji Ieiiiettt, 5 e d/uIi,ii r, lie/u, 2 I S\\’ d Ion, 1n9 ( I cx. O): /thno, i’ lien L

keih (u, )07 \V2d 195. I flex. 095) (per inam)

\lot hLr m tti ippc il tics hc is ippc ii tni trout I he iudgincnt Si ried l,v tht. itt ii

coutril out vlaieh o. 01 . I lie uccord. however. contains only the March (th notice ot nonsuit. It

does not contain a dismissal oiclcr, and the trial cowl clerk has informed us that no order exists.

By letter dated I tine X () I 2. we thrected the parties to hiain. within ten days ot the date

ot’ our letter, a supplemental record contaunmg an order of nonsuit or dismissal. We explained that

ithotit iwlu an rd’r we had no jurisdiction over the appeal, and we cautioned that tailure to tile

the requested record won Id result in dismissal of the appeal. lo date, the supplemental record has

not heen tiled, and the parties have not otherwise communicated with the (‘ourt.

A tinal judgment is tundamental to our tunsdiction, Without a final judgment, our

jurisdiction us not invoked. S’ee Lchnni,,,,, 39 S.\V.3d at I 95. Because we have no order of nonstnt

or dismissal, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal and dismiss it. See Fix. R. Apt. P. 423(a).

I I I

\fI(rI \[ I J ONI If’i itJSTlCL

I 203191’. P05 .‘ I

(tiitrt ü[ fi11! Jittitt üt (iiXt’3 It Ot[Lt

JUDGMENT IN lHl IN lkRbST ( )1 [S.. iR, A (11111) Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court ot Dallas County, Texas. (TrCt. No, I )FM4 No O5 I 2-Ut) I -CV I 7Q7R). Opinion delivered hy insice O’Neill, Justices I iti( crald and I an-Miers paitlcipatin2.

In accordance with this ( ourt s opinion ot this date, we DISM ISS the appeal. We ORI)K R that appellee ()tiice of the Attorney eneral of Texas recover its costs, if any, ot this appeal from appellant ‘Yolanda McMaryion,

!ubnent entered September 11. Ol2.

dI(1lAEl. .1. O’NEIlL II Sl’I(’li