Court Opinion

ID: 9929710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 18:11:36.28058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:45:17.824689
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-24-00011-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
          ERICA EDITH ALONZO AND JOSE MANUEL FIGUEROA
               AND IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.F., A CHILD

                On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
                         of Hidalgo County, Texas.

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

                  Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña
                   Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

       This matter is before the Court on appellants’ first and second motion for extension

of time to file notice of appeal. We now deny the motions and the appeal for want of

jurisdiction.

       On September 14, 2023, the trial court entered an order granting motion for

judgment nunc pro tunc and corrected judgment. On October 13, 2023, appellants filed a
motion to reconsider the trial court’s judgment. On January 4, 2024, appellants filed a

notice of appeal.

       On January 5, 2024, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that it appeared that

the appeal was not timely perfected. Appellants were advised that the appeal would be

dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the

Court’s directive. On January 11, 2024, appellants filed a motion for extension of time to

file a notice of appeal.

       Appellants’ motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was filed more

than fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal and was untimely. TEX.

R. APP. P. 26.3. We are to construe the rules of appellate procedure reasonably and

liberally so that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely

necessary to effectuate the purpose of a rule. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615,

616–17 (Tex. 1997). Nevertheless, we are prohibited from enlarging the scope of our

jurisdiction by enlarging the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case in a manner not

provided for by rule. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2; In re T.W., 89 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. App.–

Amarillo 2002, no pet.).

       Appellants’ notice of appeal was untimely, and appellants first and second motions

for extension of time to file the notice of appeal were also untimely; therefore, we lack

jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we deny both motions and dismiss this cause

for want of jurisdiction.

                                             2
                                 L. ARON PEÑA JR.
                                 Justice

Delivered and filed on the
1st day of February, 2024.

                             3