1

Order filed February 25, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00970-CV

____________

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF JOSE N. MARADIAGA AND 

MARIA MARTINEZ

On Appeal from the 505th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16-DCV-234636

ORDER

This is an attempted appeal from a letter ruling dated November 8, 2019.

There is no finality language in the purported decree. See In re R.R.K., 590 S.W.3d 

535, 543 (Tex. 2019) (discussing Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 

(Tex. 2001) (“This judgment finally disposes of all parties and all claims and is 

appealable.”). Moreover, the ruling expressly anticipates the preparation of a 

“Final Decree of Divorce and all necessary documents to effectuate the division of 

property and obligations — either counsel may set for entry as necessary.” The 

underlying proceeding includes a suit affecting the parent-child relationship and
2

the record contains agreed temporary orders signed March 18, 2018. The 

November 8, 2019, ruling addresses only the division of property, debt, and 

attorney’s fees.

On January 14, 2020, notification was transmitted to the parties of this 

court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless on or before 

January 24, 2020, appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing 

the appeal See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant responded; appellee did not 

reply.

Citing In re B.D., appellant contends the ruling substantially complies with 

the requisites of a final judgment. No. 05–17–00674–CV, 2017 WL 3765848 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Aug. 31, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.), abrogated by In re R.R.K, 590 

S.W.3d 535 (Tex. 2019). In re B.D. is distinguishable because the ruling in this 

case requires further action to memorialize it. 2017 WL 3765848, *1. Moreover, in 

R.R.K., the Supreme Court of Texas held that an order lacking the unmistakable 

language of finality may be ambiguous in a suit under the Family Code. 590 

S.W.3d at 544. The court noted that if a judicial decree’s finality is ambiguous, a 

reviewing court should examine the record to determine the trial court’s intent. Id. 

The reviewing court also may abate the appeal to permit clarification by the 

trial court. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 206. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

27.2 provides as follows:

The appellate court may allow an appealed order that is not final to be 

modified so as to be made final and may allow the modified order and 

all proceedings relating to it to be included in a supplemental record.

Tex. R. App. P. 27.2. Accordingly, we order the case abated and remanded to the 

trial court so that the parties may seek clarification whether the trial court’s ruling 
3

is final and to request further order or orders of the trial court in accordance with

Lehmann. A supplemental clerk’s record containing any such order(s) shall be filed 

with the clerk of this court within thirty days.

If either party chooses to contest jurisdiction, the court requests any motion 

for dismissal to be filed with the clerk of this court within ten days (1) after a 

supplemental clerk’s record is filed, or (2) the deadline to file the supplemental 

clerk’s record, if any, whichever occurs first. After examining the appellate record, 

and on its own initiative after the time to file a supplemental clerk’s record has 

expired, this court may dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3(b). 

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket without 

further order of the court when (1) the supplemental clerk’s record is filed in this 

court, or (2) the deadline to file the supplemental clerk’s record has passed, 

whichever occurs first. This court also will consider an appropriate motion to 

reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its 

own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain.