Court Opinion

ID: 9946104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 09:13:36.130528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:26.299624
License: Public Domain

In The
                                   Court of Appeals
                          Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                           No. 07-23-00441-CV

                   IN RE ESTATE OF HARVEY LEE BRYANT, DECEASED

                             On Appeal from the 47th District Court
                                    Potter County, Texas
          Trial Court No. 109720-D-CV, Honorable Steven Denny, Sitting by Assignment

                                           February 27, 2024
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                         Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

        Appellant, Jane A. Bryant, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s Order

on Motions to Distribute. We dismiss the untimely appeal for want of jurisdiction.

        According to the limited record before the Court, Appellee, William H. Bryant,

Trustee of the Restated Bryant Family Trust, filed an application seeking a post-judgment

writ of garnishment against Appellant. After a trial on the matter, the trial court signed an

Order on Motions to Distribute on September 1, 2023.1 Because no post-judgment

        1 Our analysis of the timeliness of Appellant’s notice of appeal presumes, without deciding, that the

trial court’s order is a final judgment as it followed a trial on the merits. See Vaughn v. Drennon, 324 S.W.3d
motions or requests were filed, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due within thirty days

after the order was signed, i.e. by October 2, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 26.1(a).

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on November 22, 2023.

       A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoking this Court’s jurisdiction. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616–17 (Tex. 1997). By

letter of January 26, 2024, we notified Appellant that her notice of appeal appeared

untimely and directed her to show how we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant

has filed a response but has not demonstrated grounds for continuing the appeal.

       Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a).

                                                             Per Curiam

560, 562 (Tex. 2010) (“We have long recognized a presumption of finality for judgments that follow a
conventional trial on the merits.”).

                                                 2