← LexyCorpus index

LexyCorpus case page

CourtListener opinion 10844884

Date unknown · US

Extracted case name
pending
Extracted reporter citation
959 S.W.2d 615
Docket / number
pending
QDRO relevance 5/5Retirement relevance 2/5Family-law relevance 5/5gold label pending
Research-use warning: This page contains machine-draft public annotations generated from public opinion text. The headnote is not Willie-approved gold-label work product and is not legal advice. Verify the full opinion and current law before relying on it.

Machine-draft headnote

Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10844884 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.

Retrieval annotation

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.

Category: QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

Evidence quotes

QDRO

YS COUNTY NO. 12-2533, THE HONORABLE KARL HAYS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 13, 2025, David Fountain attempted an appeal from the district court's "Final Order Clarifying Final Decree of Divorce and Order Authorizing the Issuance of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order" and "Qualified Domestic Relations Order," both signed on September 3, 2024. After the orders were signed, Fountain timely filed a motion for new trial, which extended the deadline for filing a notice of appeal to December 2, 2024. See Tex. R. App. 26.1(a)(1). The clerk of this Court sent a letter to Fountain's counsel questioning jurisdiction over this

domestic relations order

NO. 12-2533, THE HONORABLE KARL HAYS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 13, 2025, David Fountain attempted an appeal from the district court's "Final Order Clarifying Final Decree of Divorce and Order Authorizing the Issuance of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order" and "Qualified Domestic Relations Order," both signed on September 3, 2024. After the orders were signed, Fountain timely filed a motion for new trial, which extended the deadline for filing a notice of appeal to December 2, 2024. See Tex. R. App. 26.1(a)(1). The clerk of this Court sent a letter to Fountain's counsel questioning jurisdiction over this

Source and provenance

Source type
courtlistener_qdro_opinion_full_text
Permissions posture
public
Generated status
machine draft public v0
Review status
gold label pending
Jurisdiction metadata
US
Deterministic extraction
reporter: 959 S.W.2d 615
Generated at
May 14, 2026

Related public corpus pages

Deterministic links based on shared title/citation terms and QDRO / retirement / family-law retrieval scores.

Clean opinion text

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

 NO. 03-25-00019-CV

 David Fountain, Appellant

 v.

 Rebekah Ross, Appellee

 FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY
 NO. 12-2533, THE HONORABLE KARL HAYS, JUDGE PRESIDING

 MEMORANDUM OPINION

 On January 13, 2025, David Fountain attempted an appeal from the district

court's "Final Order Clarifying Final Decree of Divorce and Order Authorizing the Issuance of a

Qualified Domestic Relations Order" and "Qualified Domestic Relations Order," both signed on

September 3, 2024. After the orders were signed, Fountain timely filed a motion for new trial,

which extended the deadline for filing a notice of appeal to December 2, 2024. See Tex. R. App.

26.1(a)(1). The clerk of this Court sent a letter to Fountain's counsel questioning jurisdiction

over this appeal and requesting that he provide proof of timely filing of a notice of appeal or

risk dismissal of this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a). No response was filed.

Once the time for filing a notice of appeal and seeking an extension of time to file the notice of

appeal have expired, a party cannot invoke an appellate court's jurisdiction. See Verburgt v.

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of
 jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); Crites v. Collins, 284 S.W.3d 839, 840 (Tex. 2009)

(indicating that timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional).

 __________________________________________
 Karin Crump, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Theofanis, and Crump

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: April 10, 2025

 2