Court Opinion

ID: 9645604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:29:47.024296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:29.840164
License: Public Domain

ANDELL, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The appellee contends we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and I agree.
The appellate timetable began to run on January 24, 1994, when the trial court signed the dismissal order. Ninety days later, on April 25, 1994, the appellants filed their appeal bond. However, the appellants were required to file their appeal bond by February 23, 1994, unless one of the following events extended the appellate timetable: (1) any party timely filed a motion for new trial; (2) any party timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of law; or (3) any party filed a timely, verified motion to reinstate.
None of these events occurred. Appellants were required to file a timely motion for new trial or a timely, verified motion to reinstate in order to gain more time to perfect their appeal. They did neither.
Nothing in TEX.R.Crv.P. 165a(3) suggests that this court may ignore the requirement that a motion to reinstate must be verified simply because a joint motion has been filed. I would hold that the filing of the joint but unverified motion to reinstate did not operate to extend the appellate deadlines. Thus, the appellants did not timely file their appeal bond to perfect their appeal, and we lack jurisdiction to address their points of error.
HUTSON-DUNN, HEDGES and TAFT, JJ., join the dissent.