In the Matter of the Marriage of Alain G. Aymele and Valerie T. Ndoungue and in the Interest of B.L.A. and R.V.A., Children v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00464-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
ALAIN G. AYMELE AND VALERIE T. NDOUNGUE
AND IN THE INTEREST OF B.L.A. AND R.V.A., CHILDREN

ON APPEAL FROM THE 398TH DISTRICT COURT
OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Cron and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron

This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On September 22, 2025,

appellant filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal an order entered in trial court cause

F-2094-23-I. 1 On September 23, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it

appears there is no final, appealable order. Appellant was further notified that if the defect

1 The notice of appeal indicates an “I” at the end of the case number; however, other filings indicate

the case number ends with an “E.”
was not cured within ten days, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

The Clerk of the Court also notified appellant that the notice of appeal was not in

compliance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(g) and 9.5(e)(1); appellant was

instructed to cure the defects within thirty days. See id. R. 9.4(g), 9.5(e)(1). Appellant has

failed to cure the defects or otherwise respond to the notice.

A final judgment or other appealable order becomes appealable on, and

appellant’s timetables run from, the date such a judgment or order is signed. See Tex. R.

App. P. 26.1; Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co. 907 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam)

(“The appellate timetable does not commence to run other than by signed, written order,

even when the signing of such an order is purely ministerial.”). Upon review of the

documents before us, it appears that there is no signed or otherwise appealable order,

and appellant has failed to correct the defects. Absent an appealable interlocutory order

or final judgment, this Court has no jurisdiction over this appeal. Rush Truck Ctrs. of Tex.,

L.P. v. Sayre, 718 S.W.3d 233, 237 (Tex. 2025); Harley Channelview Props., LLC v.

Harley Marine Gulf, LLC, 690 S.W.3d 32, 37 (Tex. 2024). We are of the opinion that there

is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory order before us. Therefore, having

considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to correct the defects, we dismiss

the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

JENNY CRON
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
13th day of November, 2025.

2