Court Opinion

ID: 9388919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-22 10:10:05.025223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:23.750761
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00051-CV

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                      TYLER, TEXAS

GUS JOHN MENGER,                                  §       APPEAL FROM THE 87TH
APPELLANT

V.                                                §       JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

KRISTY WAGES,
APPELLEE                                          §       ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                       PER CURIAM
       On February 16, 2023, Gus John Menger, a/k/a Heather Menger, filed a pro se notice of
appeal from a lifetime protective order signed on May 12, 2022. On February 21, 2023, the Clerk
of this Court notified Menger that the notice of appeal does not show the jurisdiction of this
Court, i.e., there was no notice of appeal filed within the time allowed by the rules of appellate
procedure and no timely motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 26.1, 26.3. We informed Menger that the appeal would be dismissed unless the
information was amended on or before March 3 to show this Court’s jurisdiction. This notice
was returned, no forwarding address. On March 10, this Court sent the same notice to another
address, giving Menger until March 20 to show this Court’s jurisdiction. Menger subsequently
filed a docketing statement; thus, this Court sent a third jurisdictional notice to the address listed
in the docketing statement and gave Menger until April 10 to show this Court’s jurisdiction.
This deadline expired without a response from Menger.
       Under Rule 26.1, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the judgment
is signed or, if the case is accelerated, within twenty days after the judgment or order is signed.
TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Unless the appeal is accelerated, the notice of appeal must be filed within
ninety days “after the judgment is signed” if any party timely files a motion for new trial, motion
to modify, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law when such

                                                  1
could be properly considered by the appellate court. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)-(b), 28.1(b). Here,
the trial court signed the protective order on May 12, 2022, and the case information sheet from
the Anderson County District Clerk’s Office reflects that Menger did not file any postjudgment
motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, Menger’s notice of
appeal was filed well outside the time for perfecting an appeal from the May 12, 2022 protective
order, or for seeking an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
         As this Court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal except as
provided by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
Opinion delivered April 20, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                                          2
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                            APRIL 20, 2023

                                         NO. 12-23-00051-CV

                                        GUS JOHN MENGER,
                                             Appellant
                                                V.
                                         KRISTY WAGES,
                                              Appellee

                                 Appeal from the 87th District Court
                    of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. DCCV22-3139-87)

                    THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being
considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.
                    It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision
be certified to the court below for observance.
                    By per curiam opinion.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

                                                      3