Sherry Rhodes and Breena Rhodes, Both Individually and as Next Friend to MAA, a Child v. Andrew Aikens and Nancy Aikens

DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 13, 2019

Court of Appeals

S In The

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00047-CV SHERRY RHODES AND BREENA RHODES, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT

FRIEND TO M.A.A., A CHILD, Appellants

V. ANDREW AIKENS AND NANCY AIKENS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1-16-1058 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Whitehill, Molberg, and Reichek

Opinion by Justice Whitehill This is an appeal from the trial court’s November 28, 2018 “emailed judgment.”1 In the “emailed judgment,” the trial judge explains he requested a hearing in a district court in Utah, where the child the subject of this suit has been residing since moving from Texas, to determine which court has exclusive jurisdiction over the suit. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 152.202(a)(2). The “emailed judgment” includes the findings and conclusions the trial judge made following a review of the hearing transcript and directs counsel “to prepare an order” encompassing the findings and conclusions.

Appellate deadlines do not begin to run until a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order has been signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1; Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co., 907 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam). Generally, a letter from a trial judge to the parties is not the type of document that constitutes a judgment or appealable order. See In re CAS Co., LP, 422 S.W.3d 871, 874-75 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014, original proceeding). To constitute a judgment or appealable order, a letter ruling must substantially comply with the requisites of a formal judgment and must not require further action. See id. at 875.

Because the “emailed judgment” required counsel “to prepare an order” to memorialize the trial judge’s rulings, we questioned whether it was an appealable judgment conferring jurisdiction over the appeal. See Farmer, 907 S.W.2d at 496; CAS Co., 422 S.W.3d at 875. At our request, appellants filed a letter brief addressing our concern. However, appellants do not direct us to any authority or place in the record demonstrating the “emailed judgment” is a formal judgment that has triggered the appellate deadlines. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

/Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE

190047F.P05

S Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT SHERRY RHODES AND BREENA On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District RHODES, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND Court, Rockwall County, Texas AS NEXT FRIEND TO M.A.A., A Trial Court Cause No. 1-16-1058. CHILD, Appellants Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill,

Justices Molberg and Reichek participating. No. 05-19-00047-CV V. ANDREW AIKENS AND NANCY AIKENS, Appellees

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. Judgment entered March 13, 2019.