With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and that res judicata did not apply to Sanderson’s claim. We agree. Pursuant to the statutory requirements, the Report for Contempt became an order of the referring court when the referring court adopted the recommendation of the associate judge and signed the Report for Contempt under the notation “APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.” See id. Sanderson argues that the report could not be a final order, despite the trial court’s approval and signature, because the family code contemplates that the order is a separate document beyond the associate judge’s report. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 201.007(a)(10) (Vernon Supp. 2006) (providing that an associate judge may “recommend an order to be rendered in a case”); In re Lausch, 177 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). However, Sanderson refers us to nothing in

A: holding that because trial courts order did not dispose of the defendants counterclaim that order was not a final judgment that would support an appeal
B: holding that associate judges report was not final because it required approval of the trial court and contemplated an order to follow
C: holding that an order which purports to become final upon the happening of an event specified in the order is not a final order and the happening of the event does not operate to render the order final
D: holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1
B.