Koffi Justin Ngoran v. Flan Roseline Sei Messon ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Order filed November 23, 2022.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-21-00410-CV
    KOFFI JUSTIN NGORAN, Appellant
    V.
    FLAN ROSELINE SEI MESSON, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 245th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 2020-28888
    ORDER
    Appellant Koffi Justin Ngoran appeals the trial court’s final decree of
    divorce nunc pro tunc1 dissolving his marriage to appellee Flan Roseline Sei
    Messon. The trial court’s final decree was signed pursuant to a mediated settlement
    1
    The trial court signed its final decree of divorce on May 5, 2021 and its final decree of
    divorce nunc pro tunc on June 2, 2021. Both decrees include the following language: “This
    judgment finally disposes of all claims and all parties and is appealable.” See Lehmann v.
    Har-Con Corp., 
    39 S.W.3d 191
    , 206 (Tex. 2001). We note that the second decree was signed
    within the trial court’s plenary power.
    agreement filed with the trial court that was signed by the parties and their
    attorneys, and included language prominently stating that the agreement was not
    subject to revocation. See 
    Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 6.602
    (b), 153.0071(d), (e).
    Ngoran raises two issues. In issue 1, Ngoran argues the trial court’s decree is
    erroneous because the “language for the sale of the marital residence is
    ambiguous” and “the Trial Court reversibly erred by dividing the marital residence
    in a manner inconsistent with the mediated settlement agreement.” Ngoran’s
    issue 1, however, does not identify any language he contends is ambiguous, nor
    does Ngoran specify the language or provision in the trial court’s final decree that
    is inconsistent with the parties’ mediated settlement agreement. We hold that issue
    1 is inadequately briefed. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) (“The [appellant’s] brief must
    contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate
    citations to authorities and to the record.”).
    In issue 2, Ngoran contends the “Trial Court signed a decree that contains
    provisions and awards that are nowhere in the [mediated settlement agreement]”
    and “the terms and provisions in the ‘Marital Home’ section of the Final Decree of
    Divorce Nunc Pro Tun[c] are not contained in the [mediated settlement
    agreement].” The trial court’s decree, however, contains no section by that name.
    Even if it did, Ngoran again does not identify any specific “provisions and awards”
    or “terms and provisions” that are contained in the trial court’s decree but not the
    parties’ mediated settlement agreement. We hold issue 2 is inadequately briefed.
    
    Id.
    2
    Ngoran is notified that post-submission consideration of the case has been
    postponed, and unless an amended brief that complies with Texas Rule of
    Appellate Procedure 38.1(i) is filed with the clerk of this court on or before
    December 8, 2022, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex.
    R. App. P. 38.1(i), 38.9(b), 42.3(b). Ngoran is further notified that an amended
    brief cannot add new issues, but is limited to adequately briefing the two issues
    raised in the appellant’s brief.
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Justices Spain, Poissant, and Wilson.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-21-00410-CV

Filed Date: 11/23/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/28/2022