### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00190- CV
Mindy Hamilton, Appellan t

v. Brooke Bell, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 250 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -F M- 11- 0063 50, H ONO RAB LE TIM SULAK , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N P ER CURIAM

Br ooke Be ll filed a motion to dismiss this appea l for lack of jurisdiction, arg uing that Mindy Hamilton’s notice of a

ppeal is untimely
. See Tex. R. App. P
. 26.1. Hamilton’s Marc h 15, 2 0 1 3 notice of appea l arg ues that althoug h the judgme nt in the underly ing suit was s i gn ed o n Dec ember 17, 2012, the filing of her motion for new trial and motion for finding s o f fa ct and conclusions of law extended her appellate timetable by 90 day s. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a) (ce rtain postjudgment motions ext end time for f iling notice of

appea l). 1 Motions for new trial are timely if filed within 30 day s afte r the judgme nt is signe d. Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a)
. Requests for finding s of fac t and conclusions of law are t imely if filed within 20 day s afte r the judgme nt is signe d. Tex. R. Civ. P. 296. Under these rules, Ha milton’s

Hamilton also filed an a

mended notice of appe al on Marc h 15, 2013. 1deadline for filing her motion for new trial was J anuar y 16, 2013, and her deadline for filing her reque st for finding s of fac t and conclusions of l aw wa s J an u ary 7, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 4; Tex. R. Civ. P. 296, 329b(a)
. The rec ord ref lects that Hamilton e-f

iled an untimely motion for new trial on J anuar

y 18 , 2 0 1 3 , and an untimely reque st for finding s of fac t and conclusions of law on J anuar y 9, 2013. Neither filing extended Hamilton’s deadline for her notice of appea l, and the time to seek an extension for filing the notice of appea l has expired. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. After the time f or filing a notice of a

ppeal a nd seeking

an extension of time to file the notice of appea l ha ve expired, a party cannot invoke an appellate court’s jurisdiction. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W .2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

Ha m i l t on does not dispute the fil ing dates t hat appear in the record, but she filed a response arg uing that her post-trial motions and her notice of appea l wer e timely
. None of the case s cited in Hamilton’s response provide a basis for concluding that Hamilton timely filed any post-trial motion. Hamilton arg ues alterna tively that Be ll’s delay in filing the motion to dismiss waived any complaint about Hamilton’s untimely filings. Howeve r, our appellate rules require a timely notice of appeal to invoke an appellate court’s jurisdiction, and the lack of appellate jurisdiction cannot be waived. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b); Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney

, L.L.C

. , 302 S.W .3d 542, 546 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (“A ppell at e j u ri sdiction is never presumed.” ); Twi st v. McAllen Nat’l Bank , 294 S.W .3d 255, 263 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2009,
no pet.) (bec ause pro p er v erification was require d to extend appellate timetable and aff ecte d appellate court’s jurisdiction, the defe ct could not be waived for failure to raise it in the trial court); United Heritage Corp. v. Black Sea Invs., Ltd. , No. 10-03-00139- CV, 2005 Tex. App. L EXI S 1280,

2at *5-7 (Tex. App.—Waco Fe b. 16, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (appe al dismiss ed afte r b ri efing

beca use party ’s motion for new trial and reque st for finding s and co n cl u s i o n s wer e untimely and failed to e x tend appe llate timetable).

Be cause Hamilton’s Marc h 15, 2013 notice of appea l from the De cembe r 17, 2012 judgme nt is untimely , we lack jurisdiction over this appea l. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1, 26.1; Verburgt , 959 S.W .2d at 617. We g rant Be ll’s motion and dismiss this appe al for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a)
.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose, and Goodwin Dismissed on Appellee’ s Motion Filed: De cembe r 20, 2013

3