IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARY ELLEN LOGAN BENDTSEN

DISMISS; Opinion Filed April 30, 2008
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-08-00122-CV
............................
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARY ELLEN LOGAN BENDTSEN
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. PR-05-00770-03
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Bridges and FitzGerald
        We questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal, and on March 24, 2008 we requested the parties to submit briefs addressing that question. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant Justin Dale Burgess and appellee Frances Ann Giron submitted briefs. We now conclude that we lack appellate jurisdiction and accordingly dismiss the appeal.
        On January 28, 2008, appellant filed a notice of appeal of the October 29, 2007 Order on Motion in Limine. On February 13, 2008, appellant filed an Amended Additional Notice of Appeal also asserting appeal of the November 12, 2007 Order Granting Frances Ann Giron's Motion to Enforce Judgment and Cancel Notice of Lis Pendens. Appellant did not timely file his January 28, 2008 notice of appeal or his February 13, 2008 Amended Additional Notice of Appeal.
        Appellant asserts his notices of appeal were timely because requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed with the trial court for each judgment subject of appeal and these requests extended the deadline for filing the notices of appeal to ninety days from the respective orders. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(4).
        The February 13, 2008 “Amended Additional Notice of Appeal” was not timely filed despite appellant's assertion that a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law extends the deadline for filing the notice of appeal to ninety days from the date of the November 12, 2007 order. The February 13, 2008 notice of appeal was not filed until ninety-three days after the November 12, 2007 order subject of the “additional” notice of appeal.
        The October 29, 2007 order subject of the January 28, 2008 notice of appeal, was granted after the trial judge “heard argument of counsel.” A request for findings of fact and conclusions of law is not proper when a ruling is made from a non-evidentiary hearing. IKB Indus. (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1997). “A request for findings of fact and conclusions of law does not extend the time for perfecting appeal of a judgment rendered as a matter of law, where findings and conclusions can have no purpose and should not be requested, made or considered on appeal.” There, the court noted the example, as is presented in the pending matter, a judgment rendered without an evidentiary hearing. Id. Appellant's request for findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the October 29, 2007 order was not proper and did not extend the deadline for filing the notice of appeal beyond the thirty-day deadline. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(4).
        The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b). Appellant did not timely file his notices of appeal.
        We DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
                                                                  
080122f.p05                                                  PER CURIAM