COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Superior Consulting Group v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage 

Capital Holdings, Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, and 

AMCAP Mortgage Ltd.

Appellate case number: 01-21-00704-CV

Trial court case number: 2021-62795

Trial court: 157th District Court of Harris County

On November 9, 2021, the trial court signed an order awarding attorney’s fees 

requested by appellees Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings and Specialized Loan 

Servicing LLC. In its order, the trial court further “ordered, adjudged and decreed that the 

claims made by [p]laintiffs Superior Consulting Group and Deborah Nevarez are hereby 

stricken and dismissed in their entirety.” On November 12, 2021, appellant, Superior 

Consulting Group, along with co-plaintiff Deborah Nevarez, filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the trial court’s November 9, 2021 order. On December 7, 2021, the 

trial court signed an order denying the motion for reconsideration.

On December 14, 2021, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal in the trial court, 

appealing from the December 7, 2021 order denying the motion for reconsideration. Later 

that same day, appellant filed an “Amended Notice of Appeal,” appealing the trial court’s 

November 9, 2021 order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(g) (allowing appellant to file amended 

notice of appeal “at any time before appellant’s brief is filed”). On February 10, 2022, 

appellees Morgan Stanley Capital Holdings and Specialized Loan Servicing LLC filed a 

motion to dismiss, arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction because appellant’s “notice of 

appeal is untimely.”

Generally, a notice of appeal of a final judgment must be filed within thirty days 

after the entry of judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. However, where a party timely files 

certain post-judgment motions, such as a motion for new trial or a motion to modify the 

judgment, the deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended to ninety days after the entry 

of judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). In their motion to dismiss, appellees contend 

that no post-judgment motion “allowing for an extended” deadline to file a notice of appeal 

was filed. For this reason, appellees argue, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on or 
before December 9, 2021, and its December 14, 2021 amended notice of appeal was 

therefore untimely.

As noted above however, on November 12, 2021, appellant filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the November 9, 2021 order dismissing all claims. In the motion for 

reconsideration, appellant requests that the trial court “reopen[] this case and set[] aside” 

the November 9, 2021 order. Notably, a motion for reconsideration is not independently 

appealable. See Digges v. Knowledge Alliance, Inc., 176 S.W.3d 463, 464 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (holding order denying motion to reconsider not 

independently appealable). However, Texas courts have concluded that a motion for 

reconsideration is equivalent to a motion to modify the judgment or motion for new trial, 

thereby extending appellate deadlines. See Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 458–59 

(Tex. 1995) (concluding that appellate deadlines were extended by appellant’s filing of a 

“motion for rehearing” in trial court); Lushann Energy Int’l, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Energy 

Rentals, Inc., No. 14-04-00652-CV, 2004 WL 1899795, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] Aug. 26, 2004, pet. denied) (per curiam) (“A motion for reconsideration is the 

equivalent of a motion for new trial.”). 

Here, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s order 

dismissing its’ claims, thereby extending appellate deadlines. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). 

Given this, appellant’s notice of appeal from the trial court’s November 9, 2021 order was 

extended to ninety days from the date of the order, or February 7, 2022. Accordingly, 

appellant’s December 14, 2021 amended notice of appeal was timely filed to invoke this 

Court’s jurisdiction.

On February 18, 2022, appellant filed a response in opposition to appellees’ motion 

to dismiss. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3. 

Because appellant timely filed its notice of appeal, appellees’ motion to dismiss is 

denied. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ April Farris_____

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___February 24, 2022____