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 Tria l C our t Cause No. 2020

- 28888

OR DER
Appella n t Koffi Justin Ngoran appeal s the trial court ’ s final decree of
divorce nunc pro tunc 1 dissolving his marr i age to appellee Flan Roseline Sei
Messon. The trial court ’ s final decree w as signed pursuant t o a mediated settlement

1 The trial court signed it s final decree of di v orce on May 5, 2021 and its fin al decre e of di vorce nunc pro tun c on J une 2, 202 1 . Both decre es include the following lan guage: “ 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 p l enary power.2

agreement file d wi th the trial court that was signed by the parties and their attorneys , and in clu ded language prominently stating that the a greement was not

s ubject to revo cation

. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 6.602(b), 153.0071(d) , (e)

. Ngoran raises two issues

. In issue 1 , N gor an argues t he 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 in consi stent with the mediated settlement agre e ment

. ” Ngoran ’ s issue 1 , how ever, does not identif y any language he contends i s ambiguous , nor does Ngoran specify the language or provis ion in the trial court ’ s final decree that
is inconsistent with the parti es ’ mediated s ettle ment agreement

. We hol d t h at issue
1 i s inad e quately b riefed

. Tex. R. App. P. 38 .1 (i) ( “ Th e [ appellant ’ s ] brief must
contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions ma de, wit h appropriate
citations to authorities and to the re c ord. ” ).

I n issu e 2 , Ngora n contends the “ T ria l Court signed a d ec ree that contains provisions and awards t hat are nowhere in the [mediated settlemen t agreement] ”
and “ the terms and provisions in the ‘ Marital Home ’ section of the Final Decree of
Divorce Nunc Pro Tun [c] ar e not cont ained in the [med iat e d settlemen t
ag re em ent]

. ” The trial court ’ s decree, however, contains no section b y that name.
Eve n i f it did , Ngoran again does not identify any specific “ provisions and awards ”

or “ terms and provisions ” that are conta ined i n the tria l court ’ s decree b ut not the parties ’ me diated settlement agreement . We hold iss ue 2 i s inadequately briefed.
Id.3

Ngoran is notified that post

- submission consideration of the cas e h a s been postponed , and unless a n amended brief that complie s wit h Texas Rule of Appe llate Pr ocedure 38.1(i) is fil e d with the clerk of this c ourt on or be fore
December 8 , 2022 , the app eal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App . P. 38.1 ( i), 38. 9 (b) , 42.3(b)

. Ngo ran is further notified that an amended
brief cannot add n ew issues , but is limited to ad e q uately briefing the two iss ues rai sed in the appella n t ’ s brief.

PER CURIAM

P anel cons is ts of Ju stice s Spain , Poissant, and W ilson

.