DISMISS; and Opinion Filed February 27, 2018

.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 01336

- CV

REAL ESTATE ARBITRAG E PARTNERS , LLC , Appellant V. GREG GUTMAN , Appellee
On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 0 1809


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Schenck Before the Court is appellant’s motion to exte nd time to file its notice of appeal. The trial
court signed the judgment in this case on August 7 , 201 7

. A ppellant timely filed a motion for new

trial , and on November 20, filed both its notice of appeal and motion to extend time to file a notice
of app eal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.5(b), 26.3. The notice of appeal was filed more than ninety days
after the signing of the judgment, making the appeal turn on the motion for extension. A ppellee

respon ded in opposition to appellant’s motion to extend.
Under rule 10.5(b) a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal must state, among other items, “the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
10.5(b)(1)(C)

. In its motion , appellant offers as its sole expl anation for the untimely filing that the– 2

–

parties were attempting to reach a settlement agreement . In response, appellee argues that appellant

does not show “ the late filing was the result of excusable oversight or genuine error .”
The Texas Supreme Court has defined “ reasonable explanation ” to mean “ any plausible

statement of circumstance s indicating that failure to file within the [ required ] period was not
deliberate or intentional, but was the result of inadvertence, mistake, or mischance. ” Garcia v.

Ka stner Farms, Inc., 774 S.W.3d 668, 669 (Tex. 1989) ( quoting Meshwert v. Meshwert, 549

S.W.2d 383 , 384 (Tex. 1977) )

. Texas courts have rejected as unreasonable those exp lanations that

show a defendant’ s conscious or strategic decision to wait to file a notice of
appeal, reasoning the explanations did not show inadvertence, mistake, or mischance

. See,

e.g., Hykonnen v. Baker Hughes Bus. Support Servs., 93 S.W.3d 562, 563

- 64 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.)

.
This Court has previously held tha t f ailing to comply with a deadline as a result

of settlement negotiations is not a “ reasonable explanation ” but rather a deliberate and intentional

choice. Inman ’ s Corp. v. Transamerica Commercial Fin. Corp., 825 S.W.2d 473, 477, 482 (Tex.
App.

— Dallas 1991, no writ) (op. and op. on reh’g)

. Barring reconsideration by the Court sitting
en banc or contrary intervening authority from the supreme court, prior panel decisions remain
binding on all future panels.
Considering the facts upon which appellant rel ies and this Court’s prior holding, we must

conclude that appellant has failed to provide a reaso nable explanation for the delay. We deny
appellant’s motion to extend time to file notice of appeal

. Without a timely filed notice of appeal,– 3

–

this Court l acks jurisdiction. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.1(b). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

171336F.P05 /David J. Schenck/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE– 4

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

REAL ESTATE ARBITRAGE PARTNERS, LLC, Appellant

No. 05

- 17

- 01336

- CV V.

GREG GUTMAN, Appellee On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 01809. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck, Justices Lang and Fillmore participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

It is ORDERED that appellee Greg Gutman recover his costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Real Estate Arbit rage Partners, LLC.

Judgment entered this 27th day of February, 2018.