Court Opinion

ID: 9403423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 06:09:52.902663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:06.835808
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 14, 2023

                                       In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00324-CV

               IN THE INTEREST OF S.V., A MINOR CHILD

               On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. DF-04-11968

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Pedersen, III, Garcia, and Kennedy
                         Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
      Appellant appeals from the trial court’s December 28, 2022 judgment in the

underlying suit for enforcement of a child support order. We questioned our

jurisdiction over the appeal as it appeared to be untimely filed. See Brashear v.

Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2009, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional).

Because appellant timely filed a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due

March 28, 2023 or, with an extension motion, April 12, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.1(a), 26.3. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on April 4, 2023.

      An appellate court may extend the time for filing the notice of appeal under

rule 26.3 if the party filing the appeal offers a reasonable explanation for the delay

in filing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b). The Texas Supreme Court has defined
a “reasonable explanation” as “any plausible statement of circumstances indicating

that failure to file [within the specified period] was not deliberate or intentional, but

was the result of inadvertence, mistake, or mischance.” Garcia v. Kastner Farms,

Inc., 774 S.W.2d 668, 670 (Tex. 1989) (citation omitted). An explanation that

demonstrates a conscious or strategic decision to wait is not reasonable. See Daoudi

v. Klalib, No. 05-21-00145-CV, 2021 WL 1660644, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr.

28, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). A decision by a party to delay filing a notice of appeal

until the trial court rules on motion for new trial does not constitute a reasonable

explanation. See id.

      At our direction, appellant filed an extension motion. Appellant explains in

the motion that he delayed filing the notice of appeal past the due date as he “was

waiting for rulings on his post-judgment motions.” As noted above, a conscious

decision to delay filing a notice of appeal pending a trial court’s ruling on a motion

for new trial does not constitute a reasonable explanation. See id. Accordingly, we

deny the extension motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                             /Bill Pedersen, III//
230324f.p05                                  BILL PEDERSEN, III
                                             JUSTICE

                                          –2–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF S.V., A                   On Appeal from the 256th Judicial
MINOR CHILD                                  District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. DF-04-11968.
No. 05-23-00324-CV                           Opinion delivered by Justice
                                             Pedersen, III. Justices Garcia and
                                             Kennedy participating.

    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 14th day of June, 2023.

                                       –3–