Keith v. Keith, 04-26-00017-CV, February 18, 2026.
On appeal from Unknown
Synopsis
The San Antonio Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the clerk’s record contained no written judgment signed by the trial court. The court reaffirmed that oral rulings are insufficient to trigger appellate jurisdiction and the appellate court is not required to hold an appeal open indefinitely awaiting a future written order.
Relevance to Family Law
In family law litigation—specifically regarding divorce decrees, custody modifications, and enforcement actions—attorneys frequently receive oral “renditions” from the bench. However, this case serves as a stark reminder that the appellate timetable and the court’s jurisdiction are tethered exclusively to the written, signed order. For family law practitioners, reliance on a “ruling” recorded in the reporter’s record or a judge’s docket notes without a corresponding signed decree is a jurisdictional dead end. Filing a notice of appeal prematurely without ensuring the ministerial act of signing occurs can lead to an involuntary dismissal, potentially jeopardizing the client’s right to review if the subsequent signing is not monitored closely.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Appellant Ezekiel Keith filed a notice of appeal on January 6, 2026, expressing his intent to challenge a judgment he asserted was rendered on December 22, 2025. While the clerk’s record confirmed that a final hearing indeed took place on that December date, the record was devoid of a written judgment or order signed by the trial court. Recognizing this jurisdictional defect, the Fourth Court of Appeals issued a show-cause order on February 6, 2026, requiring the Appellant to demonstrate why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order. The Appellant failed to respond to the show-cause order, leaving the court with a record that reflected only a potential oral ruling rather than a signed, written instrument.
Issues Decided
The court decided whether an appellate court maintains jurisdiction over an appeal when the record indicates a hearing occurred but lacks a signed, written judgment. Additionally, the court addressed whether it is required to keep an appeal active on its docket in anticipation of a trial court eventually signing an appealable order.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, which dictates that the appellate timetable commences from the date the judgment or order is signed. It also relied on the principle established in In re M.R.G., which clarifies that oral rulings not reduced to writing and signed by the trial court are neither final nor appealable. Finally, the court utilized Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), allowing for the involuntary dismissal of an appeal when an appellant fails to comply with a court order or a notice from the clerk.
Application
The court’s analysis centered on the distinction between the “rendition” of a judgment and the “signing” of a judgment. While a trial court may render judgment orally in open court, such an act does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for an appeal. The Fourth Court noted that without a signed instrument, there is no “judgment” from which the appellate clock can run. Because the Appellant filed his notice of appeal based on the date of the hearing rather than the date of a signed order, the appeal was technically premature. However, unlike cases where a party cures the defect by obtaining a signature during the pendency of the appeal, the Appellant here failed to respond to the court’s inquiry or provide evidence that a written order had since been signed. The court emphasized that it is not the appellate court’s burden to wait for the trial court to act; the responsibility lies with the appellant to ensure an appealable order exists.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because no written, signed judgment had been entered by the trial court. An oral ruling, regardless of its clarity or finality in the mind of the trial judge, does not constitute a final or appealable order.
The Court further held that it is authorized to dismiss an appeal when the record lacks an appealable order and the appellant fails to respond to a show-cause order. The court is under no legal obligation to maintain an open file on its docket while awaiting the future signing of a judgment.
Practical Application
This opinion reinforces the necessity of the “Entry of Judgment” phase in family law. Litigators must distinguish between the judge’s pronouncement at the end of a bench trial and the entry of the written decree. If a notice of appeal is filed prematurely (under TRAP 27.1), the appeal is “deemed” filed on the day the order is signed. However, as seen here, if the trial court never signs the order—or if there is a breakdown in communication regarding the drafting of the decree—the appellate court will not let the case sit in limbo. Practitioners should use the “Entry of Order” hearing as a jurisdictional safeguard to ensure the trial court’s signature is obtained and the clerk’s record is properly supplemented.
Checklists
Ensuring Appellate Jurisdiction
- Confirm the Signature: Do not rely on the date of the final hearing; verify the date the judge physically or electronically signed the decree or order.
- Audit the Clerk’s Record: Once the notice of appeal is filed, immediately check the clerk’s record to ensure the signed order is included.
- TRAP 27.1 Compliance: If you filed the notice of appeal before the order was signed, monitor the trial court’s docket daily to ensure the order is eventually signed, as the appellate court will eventually issue a show-cause notice.
- Respond to Show-Cause Orders: If the appellate court flags a missing judgment, immediately move the trial court for an entry of judgment and file a motion for extension of time in the appellate court.
Avoiding Involuntary Dismissal
- Drafting Responsibility: Take the lead in drafting the proposed order to avoid delays that could lead to an appellate court dismissing a premature appeal.
- Docket Monitoring: Ensure that “Judge’s Notes” or “Memorandum Rulings” are not mistaken for the final, signed instrument.
- Communication with the Clerk: Confirm that the signed order has been filed with the district clerk and that the clerk is prepared to include it in a supplemental record if necessary.
Citation
Keith v. Keith, No. 04-26-00017-CV, 2026 WL [TBD] (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 18, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~4ad14cb1-0059-423f-a51c-b929a330c979~~
Share this content: