Court Opinion

ID: 4347819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-12-06 15:40:31.069744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:48:53.121770
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-18-00570-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________

YASMIN Y. BETANCOURT,                                                    Appellant,

                                            v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA.,                              Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 275th District Court
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
   Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa
             Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

       Appellant, Yasmin Y. Betancourt, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment

entered by the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-0110-

18-E. Judgment in this cause was signed on September 10, 2018. No motion for new

trial was filed. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
       Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides that an appeal is perfected when

notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, unless a motion for

new trial is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial

has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the judgment is

signed. Id. R. 26.1(a).

       A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in

good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1, but within the

fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time.

See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18, 619 (Tex. 1997) (construing the

predecessor to Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for

the late filing: it is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins,

140 S.W.3d 462, 462 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565,

567 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.).

       Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant’s notice of appeal

was due on October 10, 2018, but was not filed until October 11, 2018. On October 12,

2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken

to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was

not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal

would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant providing

a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,

appellant’s failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant’s failure to respond to this

                                              2
Court’s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).

                                                 LETICIA HINOJOSA
                                                 Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the
6th day of December, 2018.

                                       3