COURT OF APPEALS

CATHERINE STONE

 CHIEF JUSTICE

KAREN ANGELINI

SANDEE BRYAN MARION

MARIALYN BARNARD

REBECA C. MARTINEZ

PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ

LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA

 JUSTICES

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER 

300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037

WWW.4THCOA.COURTS.STATE.TX.US

KEITH E. HOTTLE 

CLERK OF COURT

TELEPHONE

(210) 335-2635

FACSIMILE NO.

(210) 335-2762

April 2, 2013

Barry G. Johnson

David S. Kohm & Associates

1414 W. Randol Mill Rd., Ste. 118

Arlington, TX 76012

Carrie L. Garcia

Law Office of M. Nathan Barbera

P.O. Box 941069

Plano, TX 75094

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04-12-00480-CV

Trial Court Case Number: 2010-50194-367

Style: Greg Chambers and Trina Bradley

v.

Eusebio Maldonado

Enclosed please find the order which the Honorable Court of Appeals has 

issued in reference to the above styled and numbered cause.

If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Very truly yours,

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

_____________________________

Elizabeth Montoya

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53857

cc: Sherri Adelstein
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 2, 2013

No. 04-12-00480-CV

Greg CHAMBERS and Trina Bradley,

Appellants

v.

Eusebio MALDONADO,

Appellee

From the 367th District Court, Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-50194-367

Jonathan Mark Bailey, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court signed a dismissal order on April 18, 2012. On May 14, 2012, appellants 

filed an unverified motion to reinstate. Although a verified motion to reinstate extends the time 

for perfecting an appeal, an unverified motion to reinstate does not extend the deadline. 

McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam); Butts v. Capitol City Nursing 

Home, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 696, 697 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam); In re Valliance Bank, No. 02-12-

00255-CV, 2012 WL 5512455, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 15, 2012, orig. proceeding). 

In Guest v. Dixon, 195 S.W.3d 687, 688 (Tex. 2006), the Texas Supreme Court acknowledged its 

holdings in McConnell and Butts, but asserted “Since those cases we have repeatedly stressed 

that procedural rules should be construed and applied so that the right of appeal is not 

unnecessarily lost to technicalities.” “Although the supreme court admonished in Guest and has 

continue to stress that courts should strive to reach the merits of cases when reasonably possible 

and that litigants’ rights (whether of appeal or of a day in court) should not be lost based upon 

procedural technicalities, that line of cases has not overruled McConnell or Butts, and we remain 

bound by those decisions.” In re Valliance Bank, 2012 WL 5512455, at *4.

Because the appellants’ unverified motion to reinstate did not extend the deadline for 

perfecting the appeal, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on May 18, 2012. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.1(a). Appellants did not file their notice of appeal until July 17, 2012. On July 25, 

2012, appellants filed a second motion to reinstate, requesting the trial court to treat its prior 

motion to reinstate as a motion for new trial. This same argument was made to the intermediate 

appellate court in Butts, 700 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. App.—Austin 1985), writ ref’d n.r.e., 705 

S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1986). That court rejected the argument, asserting, “Without treating every 

motion to reinstate as a motion for new trial, it is difficult to see how the motion in question 
could be other than a motion to reinstate.” Id. In refusing the application for writ of error, the 

Texas Supreme Court agreed that “no proper motion was filed with the court” to extend the 

deadline for perfecting the appeal. Butts, 705 S.W.2d at 697.

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good 

faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day 

grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). But “once 

the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can 

no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.” Id. 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within fifteen days from 

the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

It is so ORDERED on April 2, 2013.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
MINUTES

Court of Appeals

Fourth Court of Appeals District

San Antonio, Texas

April 2, 2013

No. 04-12-00480-CV

Greg CHAMBERS and Trina Bradley,

Appellants

v.

Eusebio MALDONADO,

Appellee

From the 367th District Court, Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-50194-367

Jonathan Mark Bailey, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court signed a dismissal order on April 18, 2012. On May 14, 2012, appellants 

filed an unverified motion to reinstate. Although a verified motion to reinstate extends the time 

for perfecting an appeal, an unverified motion to reinstate does not extend the deadline. 

McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam); Butts v. Capitol City Nursing 

Home, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 696, 697 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam); In re Valliance Bank, No. 02-12-

00255-CV, 2012 WL 5512455, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 15, 2012, orig. proceeding). 

In Guest v. Dixon, 195 S.W.3d 687, 688 (Tex. 2006), the Texas Supreme Court acknowledged its 

holdings in McConnell and Butts, but asserted “Since those cases we have repeatedly stressed 

that procedural rules should be construed and applied so that the right of appeal is not 

unnecessarily lost to technicalities.” “Although the supreme court admonished in Guest and has 

continue to stress that courts should strive to reach the merits of cases when reasonably possible 

and that litigants’ rights (whether of appeal or of a day in court) should not be lost based upon 

procedural technicalities, that line of cases has not overruled McConnell or Butts, and we remain 

bound by those decisions.” In re Valliance Bank, 2012 WL 5512455, at *4.

Because the appellants’ unverified motion to reinstate did not extend the deadline for 

perfecting the appeal, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on May 18, 2012. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.1(a). Appellants did not file their notice of appeal until July 17, 2012. On July 25, 

2012, appellants filed a second motion to reinstate, requesting the trial court to treat its prior 

motion to reinstate as a motion for new trial. This same argument was made to the intermediate 

appellate court in Butts, 700 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. App.—Austin 1985), writ ref’d n.r.e., 705 

S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1986). That court rejected the argument, asserting, “Without treating every 

motion to reinstate as a motion for new trial, it is difficult to see how the motion in question 

could be other than a motion to reinstate.” Id. In refusing the application for writ of error, the 

Texas Supreme Court agreed that “no proper motion was filed with the court” to extend the 

deadline for perfecting the appeal. Butts, 705 S.W.2d at 697.
A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good 

faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day 

grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). But “once 

the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can 

no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.” Id. 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within fifteen days from 

the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

It is so ORDERED on April 2, 2013.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: /s/ Keith E. Hottle

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court

Entered this 2nd day of April, 2013 VOL____PAGE____