Court Opinion

ID: 9939618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-11 08:16:11.060684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:38.042786
License: Public Domain

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 8, 2024.

                                    In The

                   Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                             NO. 14-23-00732-CV

            GLOBAL ENERGY ENTERPRISES INC., Appellant

                                      V.
                   WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 125th District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. 2021-18748

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed January 31, 2022. On
February 10, 2022, appellant filed a post-judgment motion to vacate, set aside,
cancel the judgment, and reopen the case. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed
October 04, 2023. The notice of appeal must be filed within 90 days after the
judgment is signed if any party timely files post-judgment motion. See Tex. R.
App. P. 26.1.
       Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion to extend time is
necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal
beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but within
the 15-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion to extend time.
See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (1997) (construing predecessor
to Rule 26). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within the 15-day period
provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3.

       On December 6, 2023, notification was transmitted to all parties the appeal
was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of subject-matter
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). On December 27, 2023, appellant’s chief
executive officer responded to the dismissal letter. However, the response is not
sufficient to establish how this court has jurisdiction1.

       Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

                                      PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain.

       1
         In addition, the response was not filed by a lawyer. See Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v.
Formosa Plastics Corp., USA., 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (“Generally a corporation may
be represented only by a licensed attorney.”).

                                             2