Court Opinion

ID: 2861673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 21:33:31.928603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:38.786182
License: Public Domain

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="WordPerfect 9">
<TITLE></TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#551a8b" ALINK="#ff0000" BGCOLOR="#c0c0c0">

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG><CENTER>TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN</STRONG></SPAN></CENTER>
</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</P>
<STRONG><CENTER>NO. 03-9<A NAME="1">7</A>-00<A NAME="2">772</A>-CV</CENTER>
</STRONG>

<P><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</P>

<STRONG></STRONG><CENTER><A NAME="3">Iris Dunham</A>, Appellant</CENTER>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>v.</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER><A NAME="4">T.L. Partners, L.P.</A>, Appellee</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>
<SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF <A NAME="5">TRAVIS</A> COUNTY, <A NAME="6">201ST </A>JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. <A NAME="7">97-02818-A</A>, HONORABLE <A NAME="8">F. SCOTT MCCOWN</A>, JUDGE PRESIDING</STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>

PER CURIAM

<P>	Appellant Iris Dunham appeals from a judgment of the trial court in favor of
appellee T.L. Partners, L.P., and signed on July 2, 1997.<A HREF="#N_1_"><SUP> (1)</SUP></A>  Because no motion for new trial was
filed, the perfecting instrument was due to be filed on Monday, August 4, 1997, thirty days after
the judgment was signed. <EM> See</EM> Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 26.  Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss
for want of jurisdiction and a motion for sanctions.  <EM>See</EM> Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 45.</P>

<P>	A review of the clerk's record reveals that the perfecting instrument, a notice of
appeal, was not filed until October 1, 1997.  The perfecting instrument was filed fifty-eight days
beyond the due date without a motion for extension of time being filed in accordance with Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b)(2).  Consequently, the appeal in this cause is untimely and
must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a)(c).</P>

<P>	Appellee's motion to dismiss is granted; however, the motion for sanctions is
hereby denied.</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P>Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and B. A. Smith</P>

<P>Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction</P>

<P>Filed:   January 29, 1998</P>

<P>Do Not Publish</P>

<P><A NAME="N_1_">1. </A>       We note that the Texas Rules of Appellate procedure have been revised effective
September&nbsp;1, 1997.  Because the perfecting instrument in this cause was due prior to the effective
date, the former rules apply.  A review of the revised rules reveals no substantive change germane
to the issues before us, therefore the revised rules will be cited for convenience.
</BODY>
</HTML>