VACATE and DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 11, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-01162-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF O.E.S., A CHILD On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-13200
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burn s, Justice Pedersen, III, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns The trial court signed a default judg ment in the underlying lawsuit on November 12, 2020. Appellant filed a motion seeking to vacate the default judgment in March 2022 that was denied fo llowing a hearing before an associate judge. Following a de novo hearing, the trial court signed an order adopting the associate judge’s order on October 26, 2022. Appellant appeals from this order. Because it appeared the trial court l acked plenary power when it signed the appealed order, we questioned our juri sdiction over this appeal and directed appellant to file a letter brief ad dressing the jurisdictional issue. Judicial action taken after the expiratio n of the court’s plenary power is a nullity, and any orders signe d outside the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction are–2– void. See Malone v. Hampton , 182 S.W.3d 465, 468 (Tex . App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.). We have no jurisdiction to consid er the merits of an appeal from a void
order. See Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado , 372 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. 2012). When a party appeals a void orde r, we must declar e the order void and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See State ex rel. Latty v. Owens , 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995). Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial or motion to modify within thirty days of the signing of the default judgment, the trial court’s plenary power over the judgment expi red on December 12, 2020. See T EX

. R S

. C IV

. P. 329b(a) (motion for new trial due within th irty days after judgment is signed); 329b(d) (trial court retains plenary power over judgment for thirty days after judgment is signed). Consequently, the asso ciate judge’s and the appealed order of the trial court were signed after the tria l court’s plenary power expired. Although appellant filed a letter brief, he addressed the merits of the appeal instead of the jurisdictional issue – our jurisdiction over an order signed after the expiration of the trial court’s plenary power. For reasons stated above, the appealed order is void. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s October 26, 2022 orde r and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Latty , 907 S.W.2d at 486.

221162F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF O.E.S., A CHILD

No. 05-22-01162-CV On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-13200. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Pedersen, III and Goldstein participating.

In accordance with this Cour t’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial court’s October 26, 2022 order and DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
We ORDER appellees, The State of Texa s and Sahira Ge lanie Taveras Santana, recover their costs of this a ppeal from appellant, Orlando David Santana.

Judgment entered April 11, 2023