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 ARBITRAGE PARTNERS, LLC, Appellant

V.

GREG GUTMAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-01809

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Schenck

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to extend time to file its notice of appeal. The trial 

court signed the judgment in this case on August 7, 2017. Appellant 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 appeal. TEX. R. APP. 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. Appellee 

responded 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.” TEX. R. APP. P.

10.5(b)(1)(C). In its motion, appellant offers as its sole explanation 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 circumstances 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. 

Kastner 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 explanations 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 that failing 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 relies and this Court’s prior holding, we must 

conclude that appellant has failed to provide a reasonable 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 lacks jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. 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 Arbitrage Partners, LLC.

Judgment entered this 27th day of February, 2018.