attesting that she first learned of the trial court’s signing of the modification order on September 16, 2013. Vicky alleged that she had not been properly served with citation of the modification. On October 28, Vicky was informed by the trial court’s coordinator that her motion had been considered by the trial court and overruled. Consequently, Vicky filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 7. On November 20, the trial court issued its letter ruling denying Vicky’s motion for reconsideration fi*om which Vicky seeks to appeal. By her appeal, Vicky presents five issues. However, because we conclude that we are without jurisdiction over this appeal, that is the only issue we will address. See Bethurum v. Holland, 771 S.W.2d 719, 722 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1989, no writ) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). Law and Analysis Unless a timely filed motion
holding that it is a fundamental principle of appellate law that appeal jurisdiction is only available to parties holding appellate court lacks jurisdiction if party does not preserve claim by first raising it before trial court recognizing that a federal court is obliged to dismiss a case whenever it appears the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction holding that an appeal is properly dismissed as moot when an appellate court lacks power to provide an effective remedy for the appellant should it find in his favor holding that when an appellate court determines that it lacks jurisdiction the only thing it can do is dismiss the appeal