Court Opinion

ID: 4451902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-10-31 14:13:54.238059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:53:27.295308
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-19-00325-CV
                               __________________

                    JAMES EDWARD GRIGGS, Appellant

                                         V.

               BRANDI MICHELLE GRIGGS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 128th District Court
                       Orange County, Texas
                     Trial Cause No. A190037-D
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is an attempted restricted appeal from a default judgment. In the notice

of appeal, appellant states that he filed a motion for new trial that was overruled by

operation of law. On September 25, 2019, we questioned our jurisdiction over the

purported restricted appeal and warned that we would dismiss the appeal unless

grounds for continuing the appeal were shown. Appellant did not file a response.

                                          1
      To prevail on a restricted appeal, appellant must show that: (1) he brought the

appeal within six months after the trial court signed the judgment; (2) he was a party

to the suit; (3) he did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the complained-

of judgment and did not file any post-judgment motions or requests for findings of

fact and conclusions of law; and (4) error is apparent on the face of the record. See

Tex. R. App. P. 30; Alexander v. Lynda’s Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex.

2004). “These requirements are jurisdictional and will preclude a party’s right to

seek relief by way of a restricted appeal if they are not met.” Aero at Sp. Z.O.O. v.

Gartman, 469 S.W.3d 314, 315 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015, no pet.). Therefore,

if a party timely files a post-judgment motion, restricted appeal is not available. Id.

at 317.

      Because appellant filed a timely motion for new trial, this Court lacks

jurisdiction over this restricted appeal. See id. at 315, 317; see also Tex. R. App. P.

30. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                              ______________________________
                                                     STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                         Chief Justice

Submitted on October 30, 2019
Opinion Delivered October 31, 2019

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
                                       2