MARY CANDACE NOYD, HEIR IN THE ESTATE OF VIRGINIA ELLEN FIKE NOYD, Appellant v. JAY HOWARD NOYD & VALERIE JEANNE NOYD, CO-EXECUTORS, Appellees

DISMISS; Opinion Filed October 27, 2010.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-10-00689-CV
............................
MARY CANDACE NOYD, HEIR IN THE ESTATE OF VIRGINIA
ELLEN FIKE NOYD, Appellant
V.
JAY HOWARD NOYD & VALERIE JEANNE NOYD, CO-EXECUTORS, Appellees
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Probate Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 04-2990-P
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices O'Neill, Richter, and Lang-Miers
Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers
        This is an appeal from the trial court's December 20, 2005 order for sale of real property and April 5, 2006 decree of sale of real property. Mary Candace Noyd, heir in the estate of Virginia Ellen Fike Noyd, filed her appeal June 4, 2010. In her notice of appeal, Noyd asserted she had not participated either in person or through counsel in the court proceedings that resulted in the judgments, had not timely filed any post-judgment motions or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, or previously appealed. Because it appeared Noyd was attempting to file a restricted appeal more than three years after the deadline for filing such an appeal, see Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c), 30, we directed Noyd to file a letter brief addressing the timeliness of, and our jurisdiction over, the appeal. We directed appellees to file any response within twenty days of Noyd's letter brief. Noyd filed a brief; appellees did not respond.         
        Absent a timely notice of appeal, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997). In her jurisdictional brief, Noyd recognizes her appeal is untimely but argues the complained-of order and decree are void and as such, may be reviewed “by any court at any time.” Noyd's notice of appeal, however, reflects she was attempting to file a direct appeal from the complained-of orders. She cites no authority, and we have found none, to suggest we can now construe her appeal differently. Having filed a direct appeal, she needed to file the notice of appeal within the time prescribed by appellate rule 26.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c). Because she failed to do so, we dismiss her appeal for want of jurisdiction.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
                                                          JUSTICE
 
 
100689F.P05