Full Opinion

Opinion issued August 4, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-26-00283-CV ——————————— CARYN CRAIG, Appellant V. MARK DOWNS DE LANGE, Appellee On Appeal from the 246th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2024-27899 MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court signed the final judgment in this case on October 10, 2024. Appellant Caryn Craig appeals a February 4, 2026 order denying her motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and a March 9, 2026 order denying her motion to reconsider nunc pro tunc. “The denial of a motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc is not an appealable order.” Amaechi v. Amaechi, No. 14-23-00303-CV, 2024 WL 2075212, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 9, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Shadowbrook Apts. v. Abu-Ahmad, 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam)). Moreover, a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc does not extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal from a final judgment. Id. (citing Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 310 (Tex. 2000)). Accordingly, on July 9, 2026, we requested a written response from the parties explaining why we have jurisdiction over this appeal, to be filed within fourteen days of the request. We stated that after expiration of the fourteen-day period, “the appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction without further notice.” Neither party filed a response. Because Appellant has attempted to appeal non-appealable orders, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Caughey, Johnson, and Dokupil. 2