Court Opinion

ID: 9912887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-25 08:09:31.478482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:27.039219
License: Public Domain

In the
                 Court of Appeals
         Second Appellate District of Texas
                  at Fort Worth
               ___________________________
                    No. 02-23-00415-CV
               ___________________________

            MARJORIE WASHINGTON, Appellant

                               V.

LIGHT HOUSE FOR THE HOMELESS A/K/A PRESBYTERIAN NIGHT
                   SHELTER, Appellee

           On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1
                    Tarrant County, Texas
                Trial Court No. 2022-005171-1

              Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
             Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On September 13, 2023, the trial court signed a final judgment against

Appellant Marjorie Washington. Because Washington did not file a postjudgment

motion extending the appellate deadline, her notice of appeal was due October 13,

2023. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. But Washington did not file her notice of appeal until

October 27, 2023, making it untimely. See id.

      On November 2, 2023, we notified the parties by letter of our concern that we

lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely filed. See

id. We warned that we could dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless

Washington or any party wanting to continue the appeal filed a response by

November 13, 2023, showing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice

of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b), 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We have received no

response.

      The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and without

a timely filed notice of appeal or a timely filed extension request, we must dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.1, 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d

676, 677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). A motion

for extension of time is necessarily implied when, as here, an appellant acting in good

faith files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the 15-

day period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing

deadline under Rule 26.3. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; see

                                           2
also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3. But even when an extension motion is implied, the

appellant still must reasonably explain the need for an extension. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d

at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617.

      Because Washington’s notice of appeal was untimely filed and because

Washington did not provide a reasonable explanation for needing an extension, we

dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); see

Veritek LLC v. TBI Constr. Servs. LLC, No. 02-20-00287-CV, 2021 WL 62129, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 7, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.).

                                                      /s/ Elizabeth Kerr
                                                      Elizabeth Kerr
                                                      Justice

Delivered: December 21, 2023

                                           3