Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO.
WALKER and PITTMAN, JJ., and CHARLES BLEIL (Senior Justice,
Retired, Sitting by Assignment).
William Cornwell attempts a restricted appeal. Because we
lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss it.
Factual and Procedural Background
trial court conducted a final hearing in the divorce
proceeding between William and Appellee Suzanne Cornwell on
May 9, 2016. William did not attend the hearing, but he was
represented by counsel at the hearing. The trial court signed
a final decree of divorce on June 2, 2016, and William timely
filed a motion for new trial on July 5, 2016.
implement the property division set forth in the final
decree, and as agreed by the parties at the final trial, the
trial court subsequently signed a July 12, 2016 qualified
domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning William's
retirement account identified as the NetScout Systems, Inc.
401k Savings Plan.
later hearing on William's motion for new trial, the
trial court questioned the parties about the fact that of the
monies that were supposed to be in the NetScout 401k, about
"180-plus thousand" were not there. William
explained on the record that these monies were not in the
NetScout 401k but were in his Danaher Corporation &
Subsidiaries Savings Plan 401k, "which was the account
prior to the acquisition of the company to NetScout." He
explained that "NetScout has started a brand-new
401k." The trial court gave the parties instructions to
"get that taken care of" and to "get the QDRO
October 25, 2016, the trial court signed a QDRO concerning
the Danaher 401k (Danaher QDRO) to effectuate the property
division reflected in the final decree. William filed a
second motion for new trial, which the trial court denied on
February 22, 2017.
filed a notice of appeal on March 24, 2017, identifying the
trial court's February 22, 2017 order denying his motion
for new trial as the order he was appealing from. After our
court sent a letter questioning our jurisdiction over this
appeal, William filed an amended notice of appeal. In his
amended notice of appeal, William again purports to appeal
from the trial court's February 22, 2017 order denying
his motion for new trial. He sets forth the restricted-appeal
requirements and argues that he has met them.
William Has Failed to Invoke This Court's
No Appeal from Order Denying Motion for New
appeal from an order denying a motion for new trial exists
separately from an appeal of the underlying judgment. See
Macklin v. Saia Motor Freight Lines, Inc., No.
06-12-00038-CV, 2012 WL 1155141, at *1 (Tex. App.- Texarkana
Apr. 6, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for want
of jurisdiction because an "order denying a motion for
reconsideration or motion for new trial is not a judgment,
and is not independently appealable"). To the extent
William claims his March 24, 2017 notice of appeal is timely
because it ...