In the Matter of the Marriage of Michael Adam Nelson and Jhoelayne Paixao Nelson and in the Interest of M.P.N. and M.A.P.N., Children v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00655-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
MICHAEL ADAM NELSON AND JHOELAYNE PAIXAO NELSON
AND IN THE INTEREST OF M.P.N. AND M.A.P.N., CHILDREN
____________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE 148TH DISTRICT COURT
OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On December 5, 2025, appellant

attempted to appeal the trial court’s order “Denying Respondent’s Motion in Opposition

and Motion for Sanctions & Granting Petitioner’s Request for Sanctions” which was

signed on November 5, 2025. On March 23, 2026, the Clerk of the Court notified

appellant that it appeared there is no final, appealable order. Appellant was further

notified that if the defect was not cured within ten days from the date of the notice, the

appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. On March 31, 2026, appellant
responded with numerous arguments why the sanctions ordered against her should be

overturned; however, appellant’s response fails to cure the jurisdictional defect.

Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appears that the order from

which this appeal is taken was not a final appealable order. “[A]n order or judgment is not

final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or

unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties.”

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001).

Upon review of the record, the trial court entered an agreed final decree of divorce

on June 11, 2025. On July 11, 2025, appellant filed a motion in opposition and motion for

sanctions. On July 31, 2025, appellee filed an amended petition to modify the parent-child

relationship. On November 5, 2025, the trial court resolved the motion in opposition and

motion for sanctions; however, to date, the motion to modify the parent-child relationship

remains pending in the trial court. Therefore, no final, appealable judgment has been

entered, and there are claims between the parties that remain unresolved before the trial

court.

Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, the Court has no

jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W. 3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex.

2007); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. The Court, having considered the documents on file

and appellant’s failure to correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3 (a).

2
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3 (a), (c).

L. ARON PEÑA JR.
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
21st day of May, 2026.

3