in the Matter of the Marriage of David Michael Nathanson and Carrie Denise Nathanson

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-19-00386-CV
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
DAVID MICHAEL NATHANSON AND CARRIE DENISE NATHANSON
On Appeal from the 200th District Court
Travis County, Texas1
Trial Court No. D-1-FM-18-002148, Honorable James Lee Carroll, Presiding
November 20, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
Appellant David Michael Nathanson attempts to appeal a final decree of divorce
dissolving his marriage to appellee Carrie Denise Nathanson. We dismiss the appeal
because David failed to pay the requisite filing fee and for want of jurisdiction.
By letter of October 24, 2019, we notified David that the filing fee was overdue and
advised him that unless he was excused from paying court costs, failure to pay the filing
fee by November 4 would result in dismissal of the appeal. To date, David has not paid
1
Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the
Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West
2013).
the filing fee or sought leave to proceed without payment of costs. TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed because of David’s failure to comply with a
requirement of the appellate rules. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Further, now pending before this Court is Carrie’s motion to dismiss the appeal for
want of jurisdiction. In her motion, she asserts that David filed his notice of appeal
untimely. The trial court signed the divorce decree on May 10, 2019. David timely filed
a motion for new trial. Accordingly, his notice of appeal was due within ninety days after
the divorce decree was signed, by August 8, 2019. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). David filed
a notice of appeal on October 7, 2019. He has not filed a response to Carrie’s motion to
dismiss. Because a timely-filed notice of appeal is required to invoke this Court’s
appellate jurisdiction, we grant Carrie’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c).
Per Curiam
2