Court Opinion

ID: 9372212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-19 08:12:08.575055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:33.707255
License: Public Domain

Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 14, 2023.

                                      In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                              NO. 14-22-00746-CV

                           ELLEN ROVIN, Appellant

                                        V.

 ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 333rd District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 2017-70166

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is an attempted appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial by
operation of law. Such an action, whether by the signing of an order expressly
denying the motion or letting the motion remain unresolved while the trial court’s
plenary power expires, is not itself independently appealable from a final judgment.
See Miller v. Garcia, No. 03-16-00551-CV, 2016 WL 5770696, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Austin Sept. 28, 2016, no pet.) (quoting Macklin v. SAIA Moto Freight Lines, Inc.,
No. 06-12-00038-CV, 2012 WL 1155141, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 6,
2012, no pet.)) (observing that the denial of a motion for new trial “is not a
judgment[] and is not independently appealable”).

      Even if this court construed the notice of appeal as contesting the underlying
judgment rather than the denial of a motion for new trial, this court would still lack
jurisdiction over the appeal as appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed timely. The
underlying judgment, which dismissed the case for want of prosecution pursuant to
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a, was signed June 17, 2022. As appellant timely
filed a verified motion to reinstate the case on July 13, 2022, appellant had until
September 15, 2022 to file her notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).
Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed October 4, 2022. 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 the 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 January 26, 2023, notification was transmitted to the parties that the appeal
was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction without further notice unless any
party showed meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal before February 6,
2023. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 42.3(a). No response was filed.

      Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

                                   PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Wilson.

                                          2