### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00705- CV

In the Interestof E . B. S. an d M. T. S.

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 3 O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , NO. 04- 1269 -F C3, H ONO RAB LE JACK R. M ILLER, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Daniel L ouis Simon appea ls the trial co urt’s child-support-e nforc ement judgme nt, which, among other things, (1) require s him to pay a child-support arr ear ag e of $16,082.14 in $100 monthly incre ments afte r initial pay ments of $400 and $1,200, (2) reduc es his curr ent child-support obligation from $550 per month to $275 per month, and (3) limit s the lang uag e he is permitted t o write on his child-support chec ks. The trial court rende red the judgme nt at issue on J une 25, 2012, and although not in the record, t h er e i s n o d ispute that Simon timely filed a motion to modify the judgme nt, which extended the deadline for filing a notice of appea l until September 24, 2012. See
Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a) (time to perf ect appea l in civi l ca s e); see also Tex. R. App. P. 4.1 (computing time). After that date, Simon had an additional 15 day s to file a notice of appea l in order
to timely perf

ect his appea l, making his notice of appea l due no later than October 9, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; see also Verburgt v. Dor n er , 9 5 9 S.W .2d 615, 615-17 (Tex. 1997). Simon, howeve r, di d not file his notice of a ppeal until October

22, 2012. Consequently , the Office of the Attorney Gene ral for the State of Texas , wh ich prosec uted the enfor ceme nt action pursuant toChapter 231 of the Texas Family Code, as s er ts that the appea l must be dismiss ed for want

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a) ; see also, e.g. , Stelzer v. Telserv C o mm., Inc. , No. 03-01-00699- CV, 2002 WL 99638, at *1-2 (Tex. Ap p . — Aus tin J an. 25, 2002, no pet.) (not desig nated for publication) (“When an appellant fails to file t i m el y a p erfecting instrument or
proper ly seek an extension of time to file a perf ecting instrument, the appellate court must dismiss the cause for lack of jurisdiction.”); see also Tex. Fam. Code §§ 102.007 (providing authority to file a child-suppor

t action to enfor ce child-support obligations in connec tion with Chapter 231’s Title
I V-D se rvice s), 231.001-.309 (g overningthe provision of Title I V-D se rvice s).

I n response , Simon does not c ontend that his notice of a ppeal wa s timely

under the

ru les. I nstead, he asser

ts that the judgme nt on appea l is void beca use the trial court lack ed subject-matter jurisdiction, and ther efor e that the de adline for perf ecting an appeal does not apply in this case.
Even if we wer e to assume that the trial court’s judgme nt here is in fac t void, as Simon alleg es, Texas courts have consistently held that a party cannot attack a void judgme nt in an untimely appea l. See, e.g. , Kenseth v. Dallas Cnty. , 126 S.W .3d 584, 596-97 (Te x . App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied) (re

jecting parties’ argument that void order s can be attacke d at any time, including time that would otherwise be too late under rules of appellate proce dure) ; see also Royal Indep. Sch.
Dist. v. Ragsdale , 273 S.W .3 d 759, 766 n.7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (holding that appellant c annot collater ally attack, in same proc eeding , order that it failed to timely
appea l); In re Estate of Courvier , No. 04-07-00469- CV, 2007 WL 2935809, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 10, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“A ssuming, without deciding , that the trial court’s

. . .

2judgme nt is void, [appellant] was required to file a tim ely notice of a

ppeal in orde r to cha lleng e it

on direc t appea l.”); Standifer v. Cepeda , No. 05-05-00725- CV, 2005 WL 2212291, at *1 (Tex. App.—Da l l as Sept. 12, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op) (holding that court lacke d jurisdiction over restric ted appe al b ec au s e “[e]ven void order s must be timely appea led”) ; Rollins v. Beaumont , No. 05-04-01859- CV, 2005 WL 2100278, at *2 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas Sept. 1, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op) (“[A] pa

rty cannot attack even alleg edly void or ders in a n untimely appea l.”). B eca use Simon did not timely appea l the trial court’s j udg ment, we have no jurisdiction over this appea l. See, e.g. , Thompson v. Bey er , 91 S.W .3d 902, 905 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, no pet.). Acc ording ly , we dismiss this appeal for w ant of jurisdiction.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice
Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Field Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Nove mber 7, 2013

3