Court Opinion

ID: 9960452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 14:12:17.929516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:31.923477
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                         No. 04-24-00118-CV

                                           Miles G. GOOD,
                                              Appellant

                                                   v.

                                          Marissa C. GOOD,
                                               Appellee

                     From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas
                                        Trial Court No. 20-429
                             Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Irene Rios, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 10, 2024

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

           The trial court signed a final, appealable judgment on October 6, 2023. Because appellant

timely filed a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due 90 days later, on January 4, 2024.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due by

January 19, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3.

           Appellant filed his notice of appeal on February 14, 2024, and his motion for extension of

time to file the notice of appeal on February 20, 2024. “[O]nce the period for granting a motion

for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate
                                                                                    04-24-00118-CV

court’s jurisdiction.” See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the

predecessor to Rule 26). Because the notice of appeal and motion for extension of time were

untimely filed, on March 5, 2024, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not

be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See id. In our order, we noted that if appellant failed to

adequately respond to this order by the date ordered, this appeal would be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

       On March 8, 2024, appellant filed an amended notice of appeal that we construe as a

response to our March 5 order. In his response, appellant agrees the final judgment was signed on

October 6, 2023. He also notes that he timely filed a motion for new trial on November 5, 2023,

which was overruled by operation of law on January 19, 2024. Appellant argues: “When a Motion

for New Trial is overruled by operation of law, the deadline for filing a Notice of Appeal is 90

days from the final order appealed. In this case, that would be February 9, 2024.” But 90 days from

the date the October 6, 2023 judgment was signed is January 4, 2024. Even with a motion for

extension of time, appellant’s notice of appeal was due no later than January 19, 2024. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 26.1(a), 26.3; Houle v. Onetouchpoint Sw. Corp., No. 04-18-00104-CV, 2018 WL

2024648, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 2, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam). Because

appellant’s February 14, 2024 notice of appeal and February 20, 2024 motion for extension of time

were untimely filed, we lack jurisdiction to take any action but dismiss this appeal. See Verburgt,

959 S.W.2d at 617; Houle, 2018 WL 2024648, at *1.

                                                 PER CURIAM

                                               -2-