Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Frederick Louis Pugh v. Barbara Winfield-Pugh

Date: 11-17-2022

Case Number: 01-22-00007-CV

Judge: Chief Justice Radack Justice Landau Justice Hightower

Court:

Fifth Court of Appeals Dallas, Texas

On appeal from the County Court at Law No 1 of Galveston County

Plaintiff's Attorney:



Dallas, TX - Best Divorce Lawyer Directory







Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.



Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement



Counselor:

MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.



MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge



Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800



Defendant's Attorney: Barbara Winfield

Description:

Dallas, Texas – Divorce lawyer represented Appellant with appealing the final decree of divorce .





Appellant Frederick Louis Pugh (Frederick) appeals the final decree of

divorce entered by the trial court on December 20, 2021. But the appellate record

shows that the trial court set aside the appealed-from divorce decree within the

plenary period, when it issued an order rescinding the decree on January 10, 2022.

2

See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(d) ("The trial court, regardless of whether an appeal has

been perfected, has plenary power to grant a new trial or to vacate, modify, correct,

or reform the judgment within thirty days after the judgment is signed.”).

Consequently, there is not a final judgment in this case, and the original petition for

divorce filed by Frederick's spouse, appellee Barbara Winfield-Pugh (Barbara), is

unresolved and remains pending in the trial court.

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v.

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). We have no jurisdiction to hear

an appeal from an order or judgment that is not final, unless a statute permits the

appeal. See Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998); see also TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 51.012, .014. And if this is an appeal over which we

have no jurisdiction, it must be dismissed. See Royal Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Ragsdale,

273 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (jurisdiction

is fundamental and cannot be ignored).

Here, the trial court has not entered a final judgment, and no statute authorizes

an interlocutory appeal. On September 20, 2022, this Court notified the parties of its

intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless Frederick filed a response

demonstrating our jurisdiction over his appeal by September 30, 2022. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). Frederick has not filed a response.