Saravanaraja Muthusamy v. Kuljeet Kaur

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 26, 2025
• Docket: 04-24-00709-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-24-00709-CV

Saravanaraja MUTHUSAMY, Appellant

v.

Kuljeet KAUR, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023FLA001684-C3 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 26, 2025

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant attempts to appeal the trial court’s amended final divorce decree and order

denying appellant’s motion to set aside the final divorce decree. A timely filed notice of appeal is

necessary to invoke this court’s jurisdiction. See Sweed v. Nye, 323 S.W.3d 873, 875 (Tex. 2010);

N. Cent. Baptist Hosp. v. Chavez, No. 04-20-00590-CV, 2021 WL 983351, at *1 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio Mar. 17, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). Although appellant seeks to appeal the trial court’s

order denying his motion to set aside the final divorce decree, “[t]he appellate [timetable] runs 04-24-00709-CV

from the signing date of whatever order that makes a judgment final and appealable, i.e., whatever

order disposes of any parties or issues remaining before the court.” C.J. Machine, Inc. v. Alamo

Iron Works, No. 04-01-00258-CV, 2001 WL 1042251, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 12,

2001, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (quoting Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co.,

907 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 1995)). Here, the final judgment is the amended final divorce decree,

and the appellate timetable is calculated from May 16, 2024, the date the amended final divorce

decree was signed. Because appellant timely filed a motion to set aside the divorce decree—which

we construe as a motion to modify judgment—the notice of appeal was due to be filed no later

than August 14, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). A motion for extension of time to file the

notice of appeal was due no later than August 29, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant did

not file his notice of appeal until October 17, 2024 and did not file a motion for extension of time

to file the notice of appeal.

On November 5, 2024, we informed appellant it appeared his notice of appeal was not

timely filed and ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (“[O]nce the period for

granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke

the appellate court’s jurisdiction.”). In his response, appellant essentially argues the appellate

timetable should run from the date the trial court signed a post-judgment order stating the motion

to set aside the divorce decree was overruled by operation of law. 1 As mentioned above, the

appellate timetable is calculated from the date the trial court signed the final judgment, not the

post-judgment order. See C.J. Machine, Inc., 2001 WL 1042251, at *1 (quoting Farmer,

1 Appellant claims the trial court intentionally or negligently delayed setting a hearing on the motion to set aside the divorce decree to deprive appellant of his right to appeal. The record does not support appellant’s contention.

-2- 04-24-00709-CV

907 S.W.2d at 496). Because appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal, we must dismiss

this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617.

-3-