Order filed October 28, 2021

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-21-00194-CV

__________

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ESTHER ABELL 

DENTON, DECEASED

On Appeal from the County Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. P14779

O R D E R

Douglas A. Denton, Appellant, filed a notice of appeal indicating that he 

wishes to appeal various rulings by the trial court related to two orders: (1) Order 

Granting Motion for Declaratory Judgment, Closing Estate and Discharging 

Administrator, which was signed on May 7, 2021, and (2) Order to Pay Attorney’s 

Fees and Expenses, which was signed on May 26, 2021. Each of these orders 

appears to be an appealable order. Appellant timely filed a motion for 

reconsideration in the trial court. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b. However, Appellant did 

not file his notice of appeal until August 27, 2021. 
2

In his notice of appeal, Appellant states that he wishes to appeal the trial 

court’s failure or refusal to rule on (1) Appellant’s motion for reconsideration, 

(2) Appellant’s amended motion for reconsideration, (3) Appellant’s objection to the 

May 7 order, and (4) Appellant’s objection to the May 26 order. The trial court’s 

failure or refusal to rule on these motions and objections does not have an effect on 

the timeliness of Appellant’s notice of appeal because, unless specifically authorized 

by statute, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. See Tex. A & M Univ. 

Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840–41 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 

39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The trial court’s rulings, or lack thereof, on 

Appellant’s motions and objections are not independently appealable because they 

do not constitute final judgments.

With respect to the trial court’s May 7 order, the notice of appeal was due to 

be filed on or before August 5, 2021, ninety days after the date that the trial court 

signed the order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Because Appellant’s notice of appeal 

was not filed on or before August 5 or within the fifteen-day period permitted by the 

rules for an extension, see TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, we do not have jurisdiction over 

Appellant’s attempted appeal from the May 7 order. See Wilkins v. Methodist Health 

Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. 2005); Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 227 

S.W.3d 233, 233–34 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see also

Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (stating that, once the fifteenday period for granting a motion for extension of time has passed, a party can no 

longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction). We note that we are prohibited 

from suspending the rules “to alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case.” 

TEX. R. APP. P. 2. 

With respect to the trial court’s May 26 order, the notice of appeal was due to 

be filed on or before August 24, 2021, ninety days after the date that the trial court 

signed the order. See TEX.R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Although Appellant’s notice of appeal 
3

was not filed on or before August 24, it was filed within the fifteen-day period 

permitted by the rules for an extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Therefore, insofar 

as it relates to the May 26 order, Appellant’s notice of appeal shall be treated as an 

implied motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See Verburgt, 959 

S.W.2d at 617. Appellant must, however, provide this court with a reasonable 

explanation for the untimeliness of the notice of appeal, i.e., “any plausible statement 

of circumstances indicating that failure to file within the [specified] period was not 

deliberate or intentional, but was the result of inadvertence, mistake or mischance.” 

Hone v. Hanafin, 104 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting 

Meshwert v. Meshwert, 549 S.W.2d 383, 384 (Tex. 1977)); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 

10.5(b)(1)(C). We note that, absent deliberate or intentional conduct on the part of 

the appellant, a court of appeals should ordinarily accept the appellant’s explanations 

as reasonable. Hone, 104 S.W.3d at 887. We also note, however, that absent a 

reasonable explanation, this appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

For the reasons explained above, this appeal may be continued only as to the 

trial court’s May 26, 2021 Order to Pay Attorney’s Fees and Expenses and, even so, 

only if Appellant provides this court with a reasonable explanation for the 

untimeliness of his notice of appeal. Appellant is directed to file in this court a 

written explanation on or before November 15, 2021.

It is so ordered.

PER CURIAM

October 28, 2021

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.