Appeal from the 126th District Court Travis County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. D-1-FM-16-006502.
consists of Justices Higley, Massengale, and Lloyd.
Charles Jia Zhuang, attempts to appeal from the final decree
of divorce, signed on April 17, 2017. Appellee, Rachel Zhang, has
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction contending
that the notice of appeal was untimely. We agree, grant the
motion, and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
authorized by statute to consider an appeal from a
"final order" rendered under Title 5 of the Family
Code. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(b)
(West 2011); see, e.g., Brejon v. Johnson,
314 S.W.3d 26, 33 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no
pet.). Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty
days after the final judgment or order is signed.
See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a
notice of appeal is extended to ninety days after the date
the judgment is signed if, within thirty days after the
judgment is signed, any party timely files a motion for new
trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate,
or, under certain circumstances, a request for findings of
fact and conclusions of law. See id. 26.1(a);
Tex.R.Civ.P. 296, 329b(a), (g). To be considered timely, any
request for findings and conclusions must be filed within
twenty days after the date the judgment was signed.
trial court signed the final decree of divorce on April 14,
2017, making May 15, 2017, the deadline for filing a notice
of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 26.1.
Although the district clerk's information sheet lists the
date of the order appealed was April 17, 2017, according to
the clerk's record, while the decree was filed on April
17, 2017, it was actually signed on April 14, 2017. See
id. 26.1 (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days
after judgment is signed). Appellant did not file his notice
of appeal in the trial court until June 13, 2017, which was
sixty days after the decree was signed. Appellant neither
filed a motion for extension of time to file the notice of
appeal, nor can one be implied because the notice of appeal
was untimely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3(b);
Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 (Tex.
1997). Thus, this appeal would be untimely unless appellant
had timely filed a post-judgment request or motion.
See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a); Tex.R.Civ.P. 296,
to the clerk's record, although appellant did not file a
motion for new trial, he filed a request for findings of fact
and conclusions of law in the district court on May 8, 2017.
However, this May 8, 2017 request was untimely because any
such request must be filed within twenty days after the date
the final decree was signed on April 14, 2017, which was May
4, 2017. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 296. Because
appellant's request for findings was not timely filed,
the trial court was not required to make findings and
conclusions, and it did not extend appellant's deadline
for filing the notice of appeal. See Cartmill v.
Cartmill, No. 14-06-00583-CV, 2006 WL 2164721, at *1-2
(Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 3, 2006, pet. denied)
(per curiam) (mem. op.) (denying appellant's motion for
extension of time to file notice of appeal because request
for findings and conclusions was untimely, trial court was
not required to rule on it, and notice of appeal was filed
beyond fifteen-day extension period); see also Stroman v.
Martinez, No. 01-14-00991-CV, 2015 WL 1926015, at *1
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 28, 2015, no pet.) (per
curiam) (mem. op.) (granting appellee's motion to dismiss
for want of jurisdiction because untimely motion for
rehearing and new trial did not extend deadline for filing
notice of appeal) (citation omitted).
October 17, 2017, appellee, Rachel Zhang, filed this motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Appellee contends that,
because the appellant's May 8, 2017 request for findings
and conclusions was untimely, that made his June 13, 2017
notice of appeal untimely. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 296;
Tex.R.App.P. 26.1(a), 42.3(a). More than ten days has passed,
but appellant did not file a timely response to the motion.
See Tex. R. App. P. 10.3(a). Instead, on November 9,
2017, appellant filed a second motion for extension of time
to file his brief, but he did not request time to respond to
the appellee's motion. In any event, without a timely
filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over
the appeal. See id. 25.1(b).
we grant appellee's motion and dismiss this appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a),
43.2(f). We dismiss appellant's motion for extension of
time as moot.
 The Texas Supreme Court transferred
this appeal from the Third Court of Appeals to this Court
pursuant to its docket equalization powers. See Tex.