Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 14-25-00646-CV, January 29, 2026.
On appeal from the 461st District Court of Brazoria County.
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal for want of jurisdiction because the appellant attempted to appeal from an oral ruling that had not been reduced to a signed, written order. The court reaffirmed that neither an oral pronouncement from the bench nor a memorandum entry on a trial court’s docket sheet constitutes a final, appealable judgment under Texas law.
Relevance to Family Law
In the fast-paced environment of family law litigation—particularly regarding protective orders, temporary orders, or emergency custody motions—practitioners often receive rulings from the bench or via docket entries. This case serves as a critical jurisdictional reminder: an oral “denial” or a “granted” note on a docket sheet does not start the appellate clock, nor does it provide a basis for the court of appeals to exercise jurisdiction. To preserve an issue for appeal or to trigger the timelines under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, the practitioner must ensure that a formal written order is drafted, presented, and signed by the trial judge. Without that signature, the appeal is premature and subject to summary dismissal.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Appellant Domonique Wrensford sought a protective order against Appellee Benathan Cook in the 461st District Court of Brazoria County. On July 18, 2025, the trial court held a hearing and orally denied the application. Following the hearing, the trial court’s docket sheet was updated to reflect the denial, but no formal written order was ever signed. Wrensford filed a notice of appeal based on the oral ruling and the docket entry. On January 5, 2026, the Court of Appeals notified the parties of its intent to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless the appellant could demonstrate grounds for continuing the appeal. Wrensford did not file a response.
Issues Decided
The central issue was whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review a trial court’s denial of a protective order when that ruling was issued only orally and memorialized via a docket sheet entry, rather than a signed written order.
Rules Applied
The Court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, which stipulates that the time for perfecting an appeal begins to run from the date the judgment is signed. The Court also relied on In re K.M.B., 148 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.), which establishes that docket sheet entries are insufficient to constitute signed written orders for appellate purposes. Furthermore, the Court cited B.E.K. v. C.E.O., No. 02-23-00025-CV, 2024 WL 3195849 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 27, 2024, pet. denied) to support the principle that oral rulings not reduced to writing lack finality.
Application
The court’s analysis was strictly jurisdictional. Under Texas procedure, the existence of a signed, written order is a prerequisite to appellate review. The court examined the record and found that while the trial court’s intent to deny the protective order was clear from the docket sheet dated July 18, 2025, that notation was a mere administrative entry rather than a judicial act of finality. Because Rule 26.1(a) expressly ties the appellate timetable to the signature of the judge, the court found there was no “judgment” from which to appeal. The court followed its internal procedures under Rule 42.3(a) by giving the appellant ten days to cure the jurisdictional defect or show cause why the appeal should proceed. When the appellant failed to respond, the court determined that its jurisdiction had never been properly invoked.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because an oral ruling not reduced to writing and signed by the trial court is not a final or appealable order. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The Court further held that docket sheet entries do not constitute signed written orders. Because the trial court’s ruling resided only on the docket sheet and in an oral pronouncement, there was no appealable judgment in the record.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case emphasizes the necessity of “order policing.” When a trial court denies an application for a protective order or a motion for enforcement, the losing party must affirmatively seek a signed written order to create an appealable record. Conversely, if you represent the prevailing party and wish to prevent an appeal from gaining traction, you should be aware that the appellate deadlines do not begin to run until that signature is obtained. In many family courts, the burden of preparing the written order falls on the parties; if the appellant fails to submit a proposed order for the judge’s signature, they effectively waive their right to timely appellate review.
Checklists
Determining Appealability
- Verify the existence of a physical or electronic signature by the presiding judge.
- Distinguish between a “memorandum” or “docket entry” and a formal “Order” or “Judgment.”
- Ensure the order contains language indicating it is a final disposition of the parties and claims at issue.
- Confirm the order has been file-stamped by the District Clerk.
Preserving the Right to Appeal
- Draft a proposed order immediately following an oral ruling.
- If the opposing party was directed to draft the order but fails to do so, draft your own and set it for an entry of judgment hearing.
- If the trial court refuses to sign a written order, consider filing a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the ministerial act of signing a judgment.
- If a notice of appeal has been filed prematurely, monitor the appellate court’s correspondence for jurisdictional notices and move the trial court for a signed order immediately to cure the defect under TRAP 27.1.
Citation
Wrensford v. Cook, No. 14-25-00646-CV, 2026 WL _ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 29, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~d2dd549e-c694-4ac9-9de1-fc140cd69550~~
Share this content: