Court Opinion

ID: 9776769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:44:30.430448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:20.775267
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing of our denial of its motion for extension of time to file cost bond.
*46Appellant relies on the case of Onoray Davis Trucking Co., Inc. v. Lewis, 635 S.W.2d 622 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, writ filed) for the proposition that a cost bond filed in the wrong court constitutes “reasonable explanation” for the late filing of the cost bond and that therefore, the same reasoning should apply where the cost bond is not timely filed because of counsel’s mistake as to the requirements of the appellate rules.
Appellants reasoning is misplaced. First, appellant states that in Davis a reasonable explanation for the late filing of an appeal bond was given (emphasis added). This is incorrect. In Davis the appeal bond was timely filed however, since the trial court clerk was awaiting receipt of the appeal bond before commencing preparation of the transcript, the transcript was not prepared and ready when due. Thus, under the facts of Davis, the appellant’s explanation for the late filing of the transcript was that the clerk needed more time to prepare and file the transcript. The Houston court found this explanation to be reasonable and granted appellant’s motion.
It is clear that the lateness in requesting preparation of the statement of facts (or transcript, as in this case) is an element to be considered in determining whether an extension of time should be granted. Southern Pacific Transport Company v. Teresa Yendrey and Ricky Wood, 605 S.W.2d 676 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1980, no writ). We presume the Houston Court considered all of the attendant facts and circumstances necessary and considered them to be reasonable. The facts in Davis are distinguishable from our case. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is OVERRULED.