Chad Fenley Davis v. David Clarke Rushing, Attorney, and David Clarke Rushing D/B/A the Law Office of David Rushing

Opinion

Order filed January 6, 2022

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00741-CV

____________

CHAD FENLEY DAVIS, Appellant

V.

DAVID CLARKE RUSHING, ATTORNEY; AND DAVID CLARKE RUSHING D/B/A THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID RUSHING, Appellees

On Appeal from the 234th District Court Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-15972

ORDER

This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 30, 2021. Appellant timely filed a post judgment motion. The notice of appeal was due November 29, 2021. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant, however, filed the notice of appeal on December 13, 2021, a date within 15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when the perfecting instrument is filed within 15 days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant 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 appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal on or before 10 days after the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3;10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.