Martin v. Martin (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jun. 25, 2009)(Opinion by Bland)(notice of
appeal in SAPCR modification proceeding untimely, appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction,
appellate timetable and deadline to perfect appeal)
DISMISS APPEAL: Opinion by Justice Bland
Panel members: Justices Keyes, Hanks and Bland
01-09-00136-CV Mayuko Saeki Martin v. Timothy E. Martin
Appeal from 328th District Court of Fort Bend County
In a notice of appeal filed December 12, 2008, Mayuko Saeki Martin seeks review of the
trial court’s rulings relating to her possession and access to D., a child born of Mayuko’s
now-dissolved marriage to Timothy E. Martin. Timothy has moved this Court to dismiss
Mayuko’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Mayuko’s notice of appeal complains of rulings contained in the final order in the underlying
suit to modify the parent-child relationship signed July 28, 2004. Timothy contends that the
time for appealing that order expired before October 2004, making her notice untimely. In
response, Mayuko notes that she filed subsequent petitions to modify on September 22,
2006 and February 16, 2009, and moved for new trial on February 23, 2009.
Mayuko concedes that the trial court has not ruled on either the 2006 or the 2009 petition to
modify, and her notice of appeal references only the trial court’s July 28, 2004 final order.
“A court with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction may modify an order that provides for the
conservatorship, support, or possession of and access to a child.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
§ 156.001 (Vernon 2008). The trial court’s continuing jurisdiction, however, does not alter
the deadline for appealing a final modification order. The rules applicable to appeals in civil
cases in general also govern an appeal from a final order on a motion to modify. See Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(a) (Vernon 2008).
Accordingly, Mayuko had to file any motion for new trial or, in the absence of such motion, a
notice of appeal, within 30 days of the July 28, 2004 order, or by August 30, 2004. See Tex.
R. Civ. P. 329b(a); Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Her subsequent motions to modify do not reinstate
the timetable for seeking appellate review of the trial court’s 2004 order, which stems from
an earlier motion. Accordingly, her notice is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction over the
We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We also deny Timothy’s request for
sanctions. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Hanks, and Bland.
 The notice of appeal also seeks review of temporary orders signed on January 20, 2004. Whether we have
jurisdiction over these temporary orders depends on the appealability of the final order. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §
105.001(e) (Vernon 2008) (declaring that temporary orders are not subject to interlocutory appeal).