Appellees’ Motion Denied, Appellant’s Motion Granted, and Order filed July 

8, 2021 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00284-CV

____________

PAUL G. PARSONS, Appellant

V.

TRICHTER & LEGRAND P.C. AND GARY TRICHTER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 164th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-54590

ORDER

This appeal is from a summary judgment order signed April 21, 2021. 

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on May 24, 2021. In that notice of appeal, below 

a case caption that included the style of the case and the trial court cause number, 

along with the trial court’s name itself, the notice declared that “[u]nder Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 25.1, [appellant] files this notice of appeal[, and t]his case 

will be appealed to either the First or Fourteenth Court of Appeals, in Houston, 

Texas.” The timing and form of the notice prompted appellees to file a motion to 
2

dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to comply with appellate 

procedural rules. On June 14, 2021, appellant filed a motion for extension of time 

to file an amended notice of appeal (which also serves as response to appellees’ 

motion), and he has also filed an amended notice of appeal with this court pursuant 

to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(g).

The timeliness of appellant’s original and amended notices of appeal will be 

addressed first. In civil cases, a notice of appeal normally “must be filed within 30 

days after the judgment is signed.” Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant’s original notice 

of appeal, filed 33 days after the trial court’s summary judgment order, indisputably 

missed that deadline. However, if within 15 days after that deadline an appellant 

both files in the trial court a notice of appeal and files in the appellate court a motion 

to extend the time for the notice’s filing, the appellate court may extend the time for 

the notice’s filing. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Appellant’s original notice of appeal 

was filed within that 15-day window, and although appellant’s formal motion to 

extend time was filed beyond the 15-day window, the original notice of appeal itself 

serves as an implied motion for extension of time. See Hone v. Hanafin, 104 S.W.3d 

884, 886 (Tex. 2003).

To be granted an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, appellant must 

reasonably explain his need for an extension to file his notice of appeal. Id. (quoting 

Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)). This standard is satisfied with “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.” 

Id. The explanation does not itself have to be provided within the 15-day window 

for filing the motion for an extension; this court has previously provided an 

opportunity for such an explanation to be given at oral argument, and appellant’s 

explanation has been provided well before that stage. See Miller v. Greenpark 
3

Surgery Ctr. Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

1998, no pet.).

Appellant has met the standard for being granted an extension of time. His 

current counsel was not retained for trial court proceedings, but was rather retained 

in May 2021 (after the trial court signed its summary judgment order). Appellant’s 

counsel has stated that in May, he was preparing for trial as well as actually firstchairing a jury trial, all of which lasted through the evening of June 1st. Although 

appellant’s counsel’s failure to timely file the document was evidently careless, that 

still suffices to justify an extension of time for the notice of appeal. See Hykonnen 

v. Baker Hughes Bus. Support Servs., 93 S.W.3d 562, 563 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (citing Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc., 774 S.W.2d 668, 

669 (Tex. 1989)) (observing that the standard for extending time to file a notice of 

appeal can be met even with “conduct [that] can be characterized as professional 

negligence”).

Turning to the substance of appellant’s original notice of appeal, appellees 

claim the original notice is flawed because it does not include the identity of the trial 

court and style and cause number of the trial court proceedings, as well as the date 

of the trial court judgment or order being appealed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(d)(1)–

(2). But although the original notice does not include the style, cause number or trial 

court’s name in its main text, that information is included in the case caption, and 

that placement is enough to satisfy procedural requirements. Cf. Stumhoffer v. 

Perales, 459 S.W.3d 158, 163 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) 

(analyzing the sufficiency of a notice of appeal based partly on what information 

was included in its case caption). Moreover, although the original notice did not 

include the date of the order or judgment appealed from, the amended notice does

specify that appellant is appealing from the trial court’s April 21, 2021 summary 
4

judgment order, as well as all subsidiary orders, and that correction is expressly 

permitted under Texas procedural rules. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(g) (“An amended 

notice of appeal correcting a defect or omission in an earlier filed notice may be filed 

in the appellate court at any time before the appellant’s brief is filed.”).

Although appellees have portrayed appellant’s original notice of appeal as 

unsalvageable on the basis it was not a bona fide attempt to invoke appellate court 

jurisdiction, their characterization is incorrect. As discussed above, the original 

notice’s only defects were its untimeliness and its lack of detail as to what judgment 

or order was being appealed from. Those defects do not prevent the defective 

original notice of appeal from being a bona fide attempt to invoke this court’s 

appellate jurisdiction, and thus do not defeat appellant’s later efforts to salvage his 

appeal with an amended notice of appeal. See, e.g., City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 

828 S.W.2d 417, 418 (Tex. 1992) (per curiam) (holding a notice of appeal was a 

bona fide attempt to invoke appellate court jurisdiction despite including an 

erroneous trial court cause number); Darya, Inc. v. Christian, 251 S.W.3d 227, 231 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (holding that a notice of appeal that did not 

specify what order was being appealed from was nevertheless a bona fide attempt at 

invoking appellate jurisdiction as “[t]here [was] no question . . . that appellants were 

attempting to appeal [a particular discovery sanctions] order”); see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 26.3 (authorizing motions to extend time to file notices of appeal beyond normal 

deadlines).

Finally, appellees have also requested damages pursuant to Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 45 on the basis that appellant brought this appeal solely for 

delay as ostensibly evinced by appellant’s failure to observe the procedural 

requirements for an appeal. However, since appellant has effectively invoked this 

court’s appellate jurisdiction, and appellees have not provided any basis for such 
5

damages aside from their contention that this appeal is jurisdictionally defective, that 

request is easily rejected. Cf. Glassman v. Goodfriend, 347 S.W.3d 772, 782 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (holding that sanctions under Rule 

45 are determined by “whether the advocate had reasonable grounds to believe the 

case could be reversed”).

Accordingly, the court DENIES appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction and failure to comply with procedural rules and GRANTS 

appellant’s motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Poissant, and Wilson. (Wilson, J., dissenting).