Court Opinion

ID: 9960055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 08:10:14.247081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:06.552075
License: Public Domain

In the
                Court of Appeals
        Second Appellate District of Texas
                 at Fort Worth
             ___________________________
                  No. 02-24-00117-CV
             ___________________________

               CALEB MOORE, Appellant

                             V.

ALLSTATE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

          On Appeal from the 352nd District Court
                  Tarrant County, Texas
              Trial Court No. 352-291883-17

            Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
           Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
                              MEMORANDUM OPINION

          On December 7, 2023, the trial court signed an order denying an application

for additional attorney’s fees filed by Appellant Caleb Moore, the court-appointed

receiver in this case. 1 Because Moore timely moved for reconsideration and for a new

trial, his notice of appeal was due March 6, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1), (a)(2).

But Moore did not file his notice of appeal until March 12, 2024, making it untimely.

See id.

          On March 14, 2024, we notified the parties by letter of our concern that we

lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely filed.

We warned that we could dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless Moore or

any party wanting to continue the appeal filed a response by March 25, 2024, showing

a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

10.5(b), 26.3(b), 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We have received no response.

          The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and without

a timely filed notice of appeal or a timely filed extension request, we must dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.1, 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d

676, 677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). A motion

for extension of time is necessarily implied when, as here, an appellant acting in good

       This is the third appeal arising from the underlying dispute. See Allstate Cnty.
          1

Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hill, No. 02-22-00261-CV, 2023 WL 3113951 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
Apr. 27, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.); Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hill, No. 02-20-00174-
CV, 2021 WL 2978746 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 15, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.).

                                               2
faith files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the 15-

day period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing

deadline under Rule 26.3. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; see

also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3. But even when an extension motion is implied, the

appellant still must reasonably explain the need for an extension. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d

at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617.

      Because Moore’s notice of appeal was untimely filed and because Moore did

not provide a reasonable explanation for needing an extension, we dismiss this appeal

for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Veritek LLC v. TBI Constr.

Servs. LLC, No. 02-20-00287-CV, 2021 WL 62129, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan.

7, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.).

                                                       /s/ Elizabeth Kerr
                                                       Elizabeth Kerr
                                                       Justice

Delivered: April 11, 2024

                                            3