Anglo-Dutch Petroleum International, Inc., and Anglo-Dutch (Tenge), LLC v. Greenberg Peden, P.C., and Gerald J. Swonke

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 21, 2014·No. 14-14-00706-CV·Published

Opinion

Order filed October 21, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-14-00706-CV ____________

ANGLO-DUTCH PETROLEUM INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND ANGLO-DUTCH (TENGE), LLC, Appellants/Cross-Appellees V. GREENBERG PEDEN, P.C., AND GERALD J. SWONKE, Appellees/Cross-Appellant

On Appeal from the 61st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2004-20712

ORDER

The clerk’s record in this appeal was filed October 15, 2014. The record reflects that the trial court signed a final judgment on May 13, 2014. On June 12, 2014, the Anglo-Dutch parties filed timely motions for new trial and to modify the judgment. The same date, the Greenberg parties filed a timely motion to modify, correct, and reform the judgment, or alternatively, motion for new trial. Therefore, to perfect an appeal, a notice of appeal was due August 11, 2014. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a) (requiring the notice of appeal to be filed within 90 days after the judgment is signed when a timely motion for new trial or other post-judgment motion is filed). The Anglo-Dutch parties filed their notice of appeal on August 25, 2014. The Greenberg parties filed a notice of appeal on August 26, 2014. Rule 26.1(d) also provides that if any party timely files a notice of appeal, another party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the first notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(d). Both notices were untimely, but filed within the fifteen-day period for requesting an extension of time. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. The parties did not file a motion for extension of time, however. A motion for extension of time is “necessarily implied” when the perfecting instrument is filed within fifteen days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). While an extension may be implied, a party filing an untimely notice of appeal is still obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). Accordingly, we ORDER the parties to file proper motions to extend time to file the notices of appeal within 15 days of the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; 10.5(b). The court may dismiss the appeal of a non-compliant party. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Anglo-Dutch Petroleum International, Inc., and Anglo-Dutch (Tenge), LLC v. Greenberg Peden, P.C., and Gerald J. Swonke, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Anglo-Dutch Petroleum International, Inc., and Anglo-Dutch (Tenge), LLC v. Greenberg Peden, P.C., and Gerald J. Swonke (Anglo-Dutch Petroleum International, Inc., and Anglo-Dutch (Tenge), LLC v. Greenberg Peden, P.C., and Gerald J. Swonke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Verburgt v. Dorner
959 S.W.2d 615 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)
Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Associates, Ltd.
974 S.W.2d 805 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)