## NO. 12

- 24

- 00109

- CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

KATIE REAMES , APPE LLANT
V.
CHELSEA BARNES

- BRASHEAR , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 249TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM On March 28, 2024, Katie Reames filed a notice of appeal from a judgment signed on December 28, 2023

. 1 Under Rule 26.1 , the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed o r , if the case is acceler ated, within twenty days after the judgment or order is signed

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26. 1

. Un less the appeal i s acceler ated, t he notice of appeal must be f ile d within ninety days “after the judgment is signed ” if any party timely files a motion for new trial , motion to modify, motion to reinsta te, or request for findings of fa ct and conclusion s of law when such co uld be pr operly considered by the appellate c ourt

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26. 1 (a)

- (b) , 28.1(b)

. Reames ’ s docketing statement refl ects that she filed a motion for new trial on January 26, 2024, making her notice of appea l due on o r before March 27

. R

ule 26.3 pr ovides that a motion to extend the time for filing a notice of app eal must be filed wi thin fifteen days after the deadline f or filing the notice of appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3

. Any motion for extension of time was due no later than April 1 1

. Reames did not file a motion f or extension

.

1 This case was t ransferred to this Court fro m the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco , Texas, pursuant to a docket equalization order. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (West 2013)

.2 On April 26 , this Court notified Reames that the information received in this appeal does not sho w the jurisdiction of this Court, i.e., there is no timely notice of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 26.1 , 3 7.1

. Nevertheless , Ream es was further notifi ed that, pursuant to Rule 2 6.3 and Verbur gt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997) , we would imply a motion to extend time for filing the notice of appeal. We informed Reames that Rule 26.3 requires a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b). See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10. 5(b) , 2 6.3(b)

. Thus, we notifie d Reames that the a ppeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction u nless on or before May 6 , she informed this Co urt, in writing, of facts that reasonably explained the need for an exte nsion of time to file the notice of appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3

. Th is deadline expired without a motion in accordance with Verburgt or ot her response from Reames

. This Court is not au t horized to alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case. S ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2. Because Reames did no t respond to this Court ’ s Ve rburgt notice, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over the appeal. See Zakirali v. Sysco Corp. , No. 10

- 23

- 00242

- CV, 2023 WL 7871794, at * 1 ( Tex. App.

— Waco Nov. 16, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( dismissing appeal for want of j urisd ict ion when motion for extensio n was imp lied under Verburgt but appellant failed to provide reasonable explana tion for late notice of appeal desp ite appellate court ’ s
wa r n ing letter ); see also Lasater v. Thompson , No. 02

- 2 0

- 00290

- CV, 2021 WL 386957, at *1 (Te x. App.

— Fort Worth Feb. 4, 2 021, no pet. h. ) (mem. op.) (absent timely filed notice of appeal or extension reques t, appellate court l acks juri sdiction). Accordingly, the appeal is dismi ssed for want of jurisdiction

. 2

Opinion delivered May 15, 2024

. Pane l consist ed of Worthen, C.J. , Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

2 We also note that Reames ’ s notice of appeal fails to com ply w it h Section 51.0 17( a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. S ee T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.017(a) (Wes t Supp. 2019) (no tice of appeal mu st be served on each court repor ter responsible for preparing reporter’s record).

## COURT OF APPEALS
TW ELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
J UDGMENT

M AY 1 5, 2024

NO
. 12-24-00109- CV

K

ATIE REAMES , Appellant V. CHELSEA BARN ES

- BRASHEAR , Appellee

A ppeal from the 249th Dist rict Court of Johnson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. DC -C202200203)

THIS CAU SE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court th at the ap peal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Cou rt that this appeal be, and the same is, he reby dism issed for want of juris diction ; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J