NO. 12-24-00109-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KATIE REAMES, 

APPELLANT

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 or, if the case is accelerated, within twenty days after the judgment or 

order is signed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Unless the appeal is accelerated, the notice of appeal must 

be filed within ninety days “after the judgment is signed” if any party timely files a motion for 

new trial, motion to modify, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusions 

of law when such could be properly considered by the appellate court. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)-

(b), 28.1(b). Reames’s docketing statement reflects that she filed a motion for new trial on 

January 26, 2024, making her notice of appeal due on or before March 27. 

Rule 26.3 provides that a motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal must be 

filed within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3.

Any motion for extension of time was due no later than April 11. Reames did not file a motion 

for extension.

1 This case was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco, Texas, pursuant to 

a docket equalization order. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013).
2

On April 26, this Court notified Reames that the information received in this appeal does 

not show the jurisdiction of this Court, i.e., there is no timely notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 26.1, 37.1. Nevertheless, Reames was further notified that, pursuant to Rule 

26.3 and Verburgt 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b). Thus, we notified Reames

that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless on or before May 6, she

informed this Court, in writing, of facts that reasonably explained the need for an extension of 

time to file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. This deadline expired without a 

motion in accordance with Verburgt or other response from Reames.

This Court is not authorized to alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Because Reames did not respond to this Court’s Verburgt 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 jurisdiction when motion for extension was implied under Verburgt but appellant 

failed to provide reasonable explanation for late notice of appeal despite appellate court’s 

warning letter); see also Lasater v. Thompson, No. 02-20-00290-CV, 2021 WL 386957, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 4, 2021, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (absent timely filed notice of appeal 

or extension request, appellate court lacks jurisdiction). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

2

Opinion delivered May 15, 2024. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

2 We also note that Reames’s notice of appeal fails to comply with Section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil 

Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of 

appeal must be served on each court reporter responsible for preparing reporter’s record). 
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT 

MAY 15, 2024 

NO. 12-24-00109-CV

KATIE REAMES, 

Appellant 

V.

CHELSEA BARNES-BRASHEAR, 

Appellee

Appeal from the 249th District Court 

of Johnson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. DC-C202200203) 

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed. 

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; 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