On J une 2, 2008, the tria l court clerk’s office sent this Court a letter stating that it had not 1 re c e ive d pa

y me nt fo r the c le rk ’s re c or d a nd that up on pa y me nt, it wo uld fi le the re c or d within a pp ro xima te ly

tw e nty da

y s. To da te , a c le rk ’s re c or d ha s no t be e n fi le d. F ro m the fi lin g s be fo re us , it appear s that the trial cour t did not act on the motion for new tr ial, which ther efor e would have been overr uled as a matter of l aw on January 7, 2008. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c) (motion for newtrial overr uled as matter

of law if not de cided within seve nty -five da y s of judg ment’s sig ning)

. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03- 08 -00 295 -CV

P laz a M ot or s, Inc . , A ppe lla nt

v. Andrew B ergst rom , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-07- 0030 35 , HO NORAB LE GISELA TRIANA , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
The trial c ourt signe d a def ault judgme nt ag ainst appellant Plaza Moto rs , I n c. on October 24, 2007. Pl az a Mot ors filed a timely motion for new tria l and spec ial appea ranc e on November

21, 2007, but did not fil e i t s n o t i ce of appe al until May 5, 2008. Appellee 1 Andre w B erg strom filed a motion to dismi ss the appea l for wa nt of jurisdi ct i o n , an d o n J une 6,

we r equeste d a re sponse from Plaz a Mot ors by J une 16. To da te, Plaza Motors has not

re sp on de d to ou r r e qu e st.

A p a rt y wh o f ile s a tim e ly mot ion fo r ne w tri a l must fi le its no tic e of a pp e a l w ith in ninety day s of the day

the trial cour

t si gn s t h e j udg ment or orde r fr om which the appe al is taken. Tex. R. App. P . 26.1(a) (1). A pa rty may file a notice of r estricted a ppeal within six months of the2

signing of the a

ppeala ble judg ment or orde r if it did not participa te i n the hearing that resulted in the order or j u d g me n t a n d “ d id n o t ti me ly f il e a p o s tj u d g me n t mo ti o n . ” T e x. R. A p p . P. 2 6

. 1 ( c ), 30. Be cause Plaza Motor f

iled a timely

motion for new tria l, it may not pursue a r estricted a

ppeal. See Tex. R. App. P . 30. I t s n o t i ce of appe al was the ref ore due no later tha

n Fe bruar

y 6, 2008 (ninety d ay s af

ter da te def

ault judgme nt was sig ned, plus fiftee n day s for implied motion for extension of time). See Tex. R. App. P . 26.1(a) , 26.3. Thus, Plaza Motor’s notice of a ppeal, f iled May 5, 2008, was late, and we are without jurisdiction t o consider the appea l. We gr ant B erg strom’s motion to di smiss for want of jurisdiction.

I n h is m oti on to dis mis s, B e rg str om e xpla ine d that the de fa ult jud g me nt a

wa rd e d h im $10,000 in conditional fee s in the event that Plaza Motors filed an unsucce ssful appea l but that he had only incurre d $1,500 in fee s. He a ttached his attorney ’s af fidavit explaining the fe es incurr ed

a nd a sk e d t h a t w e m o d i f y t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e f

a u l t j u d g m e n t t o a w a r d $ 1 , 5 0 0 i n s t e a d o f t h e fu ll $10,000. Howeve r, beca

use we lack jurisdiction ove r the appea l, w e are without a uthority to modify the t rial court’s judgme nt and only have the power to dismi ss the appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a) . We theref ore must deny

that portion of B erg strom’s motion.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and Pember

ton Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Aug ust 7, 2008