Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 14-25-00632-CV, February 10, 2026.
On appeal from the 280th District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal for want of jurisdiction because the appellant failed to provide a signed, written order from the trial court. The court clarified that a docket sheet entry reflecting the denial of a motion to set aside a protective order does not constitute an appealable judgment or order.
Relevance to Family Law
In the fast-paced environment of Texas family law litigation—particularly in Harris County—practitioners often rely on a judge’s handwritten notes on a docket sheet or an oral pronouncement as the “final word” on a motion. This case is a stark reminder that in the context of protective orders, custody determinations, or property divisions, a docket entry is a legal nullity for appellate purposes. To preserve a client’s right to appeal, counsel must ensure that a formal written order is drafted, presented, and signed by the trial judge. Relying on the clerk’s docket to trigger appellate review is a jurisdictional error that will result in summary dismissal.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Appellant Daniel Joseph Rossley attempted to appeal an order purportedly issued on July 28, 2025, which denied his motion to set aside a protective order. Upon filing, the initial clerk’s record lacked a signed, written order reflecting the trial court’s decision. Recognizing this jurisdictional defect, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued an order on December 11, 2025, directing the trial court clerk to supplement the record with a signed order. Although the clerk filed a supplemental record, it contained only a copy of the trial court’s docket sheet with an entry dated July 28, 2025, noting the denial of the motion. The record remained devoid of any instrument bearing the judge’s signature.
Issues Decided
The central issue was whether a trial court’s docket sheet entry, which reflects a ruling on a motion to set aside a protective order, constitutes a signed, appealable order sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
Rules Applied
The Court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a), which permits the involuntary dismissal of an appeal for want of jurisdiction. The Court further relied on long-standing Texas precedent, specifically In re Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd., 209 S.W.3d 311, 315 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding), which establishes that a docket sheet entry does not constitute a formal order or judgment of the trial court.
Application
The Court’s analysis focused on the fundamental requirement that appellate jurisdiction must be predicated on a signed, written judgment or order. While the trial court clerk’s supplemental record confirmed that a ruling had been “entered” on the docket, the Court of Appeals emphasized that a docket entry is merely a memorandum for the convenience of the trial court and the clerk. It does not replace the necessity of a formal, signed document. Because the appellant was given notice of the jurisdictional defect and failed to provide a signed order within the timeframe provided by the Court’s notice of intent to dismiss, the Court determined it had no choice but to dismiss the appeal. The “legal story” here is one of procedural insufficiency; despite the trial court’s clear intent recorded on the docket, the absence of a ministerial signature halted the appellate process entirely.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that it lacks jurisdiction over an appeal when the record contains only a docket sheet entry rather than a signed, written order. A docket sheet entry is insufficient to serve as an appealable order or judgment.
Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court reaffirmed that without a signed instrument, the appellate clock never truly begins for the purposes of a substantive challenge, and the appellate court remains powerless to review the merits of the underlying motion.
Practical Application
This decision underscores the necessity of proactive “order policing” in family law matters. Whether you are dealing with a Title 4 protective order or a motion for enforcement, the prevailing party—or the party seeking to appeal—must take the laboring oar in ensuring the judge signs a physical or electronic order. In many district courts, a docket entry is made immediately, but the formal order may languish in a “to-be-signed” pile or may never have been submitted by counsel. If the appellate court notifies you of a missing order, you must immediately move the trial court to sign a written order nunc pro tunc or as a formalization of the prior ruling to save the appeal.
Checklists
Ensuring Appellate Maturity
- Confirm that a formal written order has been drafted and submitted to the court via e-filing.
- Verify through the District Clerk’s portal that the document status has changed from “Submitted” or “Pending” to “Signed” or “Entered.”
- Obtain a file-stamped copy of the order that clearly shows the judge’s signature (manual or electronic).
- Do not calculate appellate deadlines based on the date of a docket entry; always use the date the order was actually signed.
Remedying a Missing Order in the Appellate Record
- Review the Clerk’s Record immediately upon filing to ensure all necessary signed orders are included.
- If an order is missing, file a Motion for Supplemental Clerk’s Record under Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c).
- If the supplemental record only contains a docket sheet, set a hearing in the trial court to request the entry of a formal written order reflecting the docketed ruling.
- Respond to any “Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction” from the Court of Appeals within the 10-day window, providing proof that a signed order is being sought in the trial court.
Citation
Rossley v. Pawkett, No. 14-25-00632-CV, 2026 WL [TBD] (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 10, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~f2f33c92-cfe4-45ae-9f9c-7af2257a594c~~
Share this content: