Paul Timothy David v. Andrea Rochelle David--Appeal from 1st District Court of Jasper County

Annotate this Case
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-04-041 CV
____________________
PAUL TIMOTHY DAVID, Appellant
V.
ANDREA ROCHELLE DAVID, Appellee
On Appeal from the 1st District Court
Jasper County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 21108
MEMORANDUM OPINION (1)

Paul Timothy David appeals from an order appointing a receiver in a domestic relations suit. The appeal is submitted without briefs because the appellant failed to file his brief by the October 26, 2004, due date. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(2). The appellant did not request additional time to file the brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(d). On January 21, 2005, we notified the parties that the appeal would be advanced without oral argument. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.9.

An interlocutory appeal is permitted from an order appointing a receiver. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 51.014(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2005); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 6.507 (Vernon 1998). Because the order was interlocutory and other matters remained pending in the case, notice of appeal was due twenty days after the trial court signed the order, and the filing of a motion for new trial did not extend the appellate timetable. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), 28.1. The order is dated October 28, 2003. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due November 17, 2003, twenty days after the date the trial court appointed the receiver. The notice of appeal was mailed January 26, 2004, and filed the following day. The notice of appeal was not filed within the time for which an extension of time to file notice of appeal may be granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

 

Submitted on February 11, 2005

Opinion Delivered February 17, 2005

Before Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, JJ.

1. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.