Zeb Ryan and Sharon Marie Cummins v. Joe Derek Carr, Joe Harrison Carr, Donna Leslia Carr and Carmen Marie Cadena
This text of Zeb Ryan and Sharon Marie Cummins v. Joe Derek Carr, Joe Harrison Carr, Donna Leslia Carr and Carmen Marie Cadena (Zeb Ryan and Sharon Marie Cummins v. Joe Derek Carr, Joe Harrison Carr, Donna Leslia Carr and Carmen Marie Cadena) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00471-CV
Zeb Ryan Cummins and Sharon Marie Cummins, Appellants
v.
Joe Harrison Carr, Donna Leslia Carr, Joe Derek Carr, and Carmen Marie Cadena, Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-FM-11-001631, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal arises from a final order in a suit affecting the parent child relationship
signed on March 8, 2013. On July 11, 2013, appellants Zeb Ryan Cummins and Sharon Marie
Cummins filed their notice of appeal and shortly afterward, a motion to extend time to file notice of
appeal. Appellees Joe Harrison Carr and Donna Leslia Carr filed a response in opposition to the
motion to extend time and a motion to dismiss the appeal.
The Cumminses argue that their appeal was timely because: (1) they requested
findings of fact and conclusions of law on March 27, 2013, and (2) the trial court “retained plenary
power to modify its final judgment” by holding a review hearing on May 23, 2013 to revisit the
possession schedule and retaining the guardian ad litem for a report, which was not provided until
July 22, 2013. Alternatively, the Cumminses request an extension of time to file their notice of
appeal to July 11, 2013. As the Carrs point out, neither holding a review hearing, retaining the guardian
ad litem, nor any wording of the trial court’s order affected its finality or explicitly extended the
court’s plenary power beyond the thirty-day period after the date the order was signed. See Tex. R.
Civ. P. 329b(d). The Cumminses’ request for findings of fact and conclusions of law extended their
deadline for filing a notice of appeal by 90 days to June 6, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(4).
That deadline might have been extended to June 21, 2013, if appellants had filed either a notice of
appeal with the trial court, or a motion for extension of time with this Court, within 15 days after the
deadline for filing the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d
615, 617-18 (Tex. 1997).
However, the Cumminses’ July 11, 2013 notice of appeal is untimely, and we
therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b) (providing that filing of
notice of appeal invokes appellate court’s jurisdiction). Accordingly, we deny the Cumminses’
motion to extend time to file notice of appeal, grant the Carrs’ motion to dismiss, and dismiss this
appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
Jeff Rose, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Rose, and Goodwin
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: August 27, 2013
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Zeb Ryan and Sharon Marie Cummins v. Joe Derek Carr, Joe Harrison Carr, Donna Leslia Carr and Carmen Marie Cadena, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeb-ryan-and-sharon-marie-cummins-v-joe-derek-carr-texapp-2013.