Jose Sylvestere Lopez v. Claudia Lopez ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • DISMISS; and Opinion Filed August 18, 2014.
    S   In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-13-00716-CV
    JOSE SYLVESTERE LOPEZ, Appellant
    V.
    CLAUDIA LOPEZ, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-05531-S
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Lang
    Opinion by Justice Lang
    By notice of appeal dated April 26, 2013, Jose Sylvestere Lopez, appearing pro se,
    challenges a September 12, 2011 final decree of divorce, dissolving his marriage to Claudia O.
    Medellin, formerly Claudia Lopez, and dividing their property. Because the notice of appeal was
    filed outside any time frames listed in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26, which governs the
    time to perfect appeals, we directed Lopez and Medellin to file letter briefs explaining how the
    Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3. Lopez filed a jurisdictional
    letter brief claiming he first received notice or acquired actual knowledge of the divorce decree
    in April 2013.
    Our jurisdiction is invoked upon the timely filing of a notice of appeal from a final
    judgment. Lehman v. Har–Con Corp., 
    39 S.W.3d 191
    , 195 (Tex. 2001); Garza v. Hibernia Nat'l
    Bank, 
    227 S.W.3d 233
    , 233 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Generally, the
    deadline to file a notice of appeal runs from the date of judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 4.2
    (providing that if notice of judgment is not received within twenty days after judgment is signed,
    deadline runs from date notice is received, but no later than ninety days from signing of
    judgment). Rule 26.1 provides four time frames for filing a notice of appeal. See 
    id. 26.1. These
    time frames are based on the type of judgment or order being appealed and range from
    twenty days in an accelerated appeal to six months in a restricted appeal. See 
    id. Additionally, rule
    26.3 provides for one fifteen-day extension of time. See 
    id. 26.3. Based
    on the time frames listed in rule 26, the notice of appeal here, filed almost two
    years after the complained-of judgment, is untimely and fails to invoke our jurisdiction. See
    Garza, 
    227 S.W.3d 233
    . Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
    /Douglas S. Lang/
    DOUGLAS S. LANG
    130716F.P05                                          JUSTICE
    –2–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    JOSE SYLVESTERE LOPEZ, Appellant                   On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District
    Court, Dallas County, Texas
    No. 05-13-00716-CV        V.                       Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-05531-S.
    Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices
    CLAUDIA LOPEZ, Appellee                            Moseley and Francis participating.
    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want
    of jurisdiction.
    It is ORDERED that appellee CLAUDIA LOPEZ recover her costs of this appeal from
    appellant JOSE SYLVESTERE LOPEZ.
    Judgment entered this 18th day of August, 2014.
    –3–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-13-00716-CV

Filed Date: 8/18/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021