DISMISS; and Opinion Filed February 6, 2017.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-17-00115-CV

LAWRENCE P. PITTS, Appellant

V.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY N.A. AS

SUCCESSOR TO JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR 

RESIDENTIAL ASSET MORTAGE PRODUCTS, INC., MORTGAGE ASSET-BACKED 

PASS-THROUGH, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-15415

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Whitehill

Opinion by Justice Evans

Before the Court is appellees’ motion to dismiss appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

Appellant’s February 1, 2017 notice of appeal states that he is appealing a January 26, 2017 

order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order denying his motion for temporary 

injunction. 

An order denying a motion for reconsideration is not independently appealable and,

without a final judgment or otherwise appealable order, we may not exercise appellate 

jurisdiction. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014; Macklin v. SAIA Motor Freight Lines, 

Inc., No. 06–12–00038–CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2748, at *1–2, 2012 WL 1155141 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana Apr. 6, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction 
–2–

because “order denying a motion for reconsideration or motion for new trial is not a judgment, 

and is not independently appealable”). We, therefore, do not have jurisdiction over this appeal to 

the extent appellant appeals the denial of his motion for reconsideration.

We also do not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the December 19, 2016 order denying 

the motion for temporary injunction because appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely. An 

order denying a temporary injunction is subject to an interlocutory appeal. TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(4). Interlocutory appeals are accelerated. TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1. Here, 

the deadline to appeal ran from the date the trial court denied the temporary injunction, not from 

the denial of the motion for reconsideration. See Hartford Ins. Group v. Perez, No. 05-11-

00195-CV, 2011 WL 2306800, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 13, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) 

(citing Weik v. Second Baptist Church of Houston, 988 S.W.2d 437, 438 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied)). Moreover, filing a motion for new trial, any other post-trial 

motion, or a request for findings of fact does not extend the time to perfect an accelerated appeal. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(b); In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005) (“absent a rule 26.3 

motion, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is strictly set at twenty days after the judgment 

is signed, with no exceptions, and filing a rule 26.1(a) motion . . . will not extend that deadline”). 

Appellant’s notice of appeal from the December 19, 2016 order was due to be filed no later than 

Monday, January 9, 2017. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b); TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a). An appellate court is 

authorized to extend the time to file the notice of appeal, but the appellant must file the notice of 

appeal within 15 days after the deadline. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant did not file his notice 

of appeal until February 1, 2017, more than 15 days after the deadline, and did not seek an 

extension of time to file the notice of appeal. Because Appellant did not file his notice of appeal 

or a motion for extension of time within the time specified by the rules of appellate procedure, 
–3–

this Court does not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the December 19, 2016 order denying the 

motion for temporary injunction

Accordingly, we grant appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal and dismiss this 

proceeding. We also deny as moot appellant’s February 3, 2017 emergency motion for 

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and appellant’s February 6, 2017 

emergency motion for stay of proceedings. We order appellant to bear the costs, if any, of this 

appeal.

170115F.P05

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
–4–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

LAWRENCE P. PITTS, Appellant

No. 05-17-00115-CV V.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION F/K/A THE BANK OF 

NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY N.A. AS 

SUCCESSOR TO JP MORGAN CHASE 

BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR 

RESIDENTIAL ASSET MORTAGE 

PRODUCTS, INC., MORTGAGE ASSETBACKED PASS-THROUGH, ET AL., 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-15415.

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. Justices 

Francis and Whitehill participating.

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

of jurisdiction.

It is ORDERED that appellees THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST 

COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST 

COMPANY N.A. AS SUCCESSOR TO JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE 

FOR RESIDENTIAL ASSET MORTAGE PRODUCTS, INC., MORTGAGE ASSETBACKED PASS-THROUGH, ET AL. recover their costs of this appeal from appellant 

LAWRENCE P. PITTS.

Judgment entered this 6th day of February, 2017.