DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 13, 2019
Court of Appeals
S In The
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00047-CV
SHERRY RHODES AND BREENA RHODES, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
FRIEND TO M.A.A., A CHILD, Appellants
V.
ANDREW AIKENS AND NANCY AIKENS, Appellees
On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court
Rockwall County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1-16-1058
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Whitehill, Molberg, and Reichek
Opinion by Justice Whitehill
This is an appeal from the trial court’s November 28, 2018 “emailed judgment.”1 In the
“emailed judgment,” the trial judge explains he requested a hearing in a district court in Utah,
where the child the subject of this suit has been residing since moving from Texas, to determine
which court has exclusive jurisdiction over the suit. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 152.202(a)(2).
The “emailed judgment” includes the findings and conclusions the trial judge made following a
review of the hearing transcript and directs counsel “to prepare an order” encompassing the
findings and conclusions.
1
The notice of appeal was filed along with an extension motion.
Appellate deadlines do not begin to run until a final judgment or appealable interlocutory
order has been signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1; Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co., 907 S.W.2d 495,
496 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam). Generally, a letter from a trial judge to the parties is not the type of
document that constitutes a judgment or appealable order. See In re CAS Co., LP, 422 S.W.3d
871, 874-75 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014, original proceeding). To constitute a judgment or
appealable order, a letter ruling must substantially comply with the requisites of a formal judgment
and must not require further action. See id. at 875.
Because the “emailed judgment” required counsel “to prepare an order” to memorialize the
trial judge’s rulings, we questioned whether it was an appealable judgment conferring jurisdiction
over the appeal. See Farmer, 907 S.W.2d at 496; CAS Co., 422 S.W.3d at 875. At our request,
appellants filed a letter brief addressing our concern. However, appellants do not direct us to any
authority or place in the record demonstrating the “emailed judgment” is a formal judgment that
has triggered the appellate deadlines. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.2
See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
/Bill Whitehill/
BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE
190047F.P05
2
Because we have no jurisdiction over the appeal, we also lack jurisdiction over the pending extension motion.
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
SHERRY RHODES AND BREENA On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District
RHODES, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND Court, Rockwall County, Texas
AS NEXT FRIEND TO M.A.A., A Trial Court Cause No. 1-16-1058.
CHILD, Appellants Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill,
Justices Molberg and Reichek participating.
No. 05-19-00047-CV V.
ANDREW AIKENS AND NANCY
AIKENS, Appellees
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
Judgment entered March 13, 2019.
–3–