DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 11, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00034-CV

LOUIS DAITCH, Appellant

V.

BARBARA BENSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-00161

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices FitzGerald, Fillmore, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Evans

In a letter dated January 13, 2014, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal as 

it appeared the notice of appeal was untimely filed. We requested that appellant file a letter brief 

addressing our jurisdictional concern and gave appellee an opportunity to respond. Appellant 

filed a jurisdictional brief. Appellee did not file a response.

In the absence of a timely filed post-judgment motion extending the appellate timetable, a 

notice of appeal is due thirty days after the date the judgment is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. 

Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b). 

The trial court signed the judgment on September 6, 2013. Appellant filed a motion for 

new trial on October 28, 2013. The motion for new trial was untimely because it was not filed 

within thirty days of the date the judgment was signed. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a). In his 

jurisdictional brief, appellant stated that he did not receive notice of the judgment until 
–2–

September 21, 2013 and that he deposited his motion for new trial in the prison mail on October 

16, 2013. Appellant contends his motion for new trial was timely because it was deposited 

within thirty days of his receipt of the judgment. We disagree. The motion for new trial was due 

on October 6, 2013, thirty days after the judgment was signed. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a). In 

his motion for new trial, appellant cited rule 306 and stated that he did not obtain actual 

knowledge of the judgment until September 24, 2013. Assuming appellant was invoking rule 

306a(4) of the rules of civil procedure to extend the date from which appellate deadlines began to 

run, that rule is inapplicable because appellant acquired actual knowledge of the judgment within 

twenty days of the date the judgment was signed. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(4). 

Appellant did not file a timely motion for new trial. Accordingly, the notice of appeal 

was due on October 6, 2013. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on January 2, 2014. Because 

the notice of appeal was untimely, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

140034F.P05

/David Evans//

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

LOUIS DAITCH, Appellant

No. 05-14-00034-CV V.

BARBARA BENSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-00161.

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. 

Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore, 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee, BARBARA BENSON, recover her costs of this appeal 

from appellant, LOUIS DAITCH.

Judgment entered this 11th day of March, 2014.

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE