Charles Ray Mason v. Tina D. Roan

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 22, 2015
Docket09-14-00545-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Charles Ray Mason v. Tina D. Roan (Charles Ray Mason v. Tina D. Roan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Charles Ray Mason v. Tina D. Roan, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-14-00545-CV ____________________

CHARLES RAY MASON, Appellant

V.

TINA D. ROAN, Appellee _______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 411th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. CIV23935 ________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 16, 2014, Charles Ray Mason filed a notice of appeal. On

December 17, 2014, we notified Mason that the time for perfecting an appeal ran

from the date of the trial court’s order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution,

and we questioned our jurisdiction. Mason filed a reply to our letter in which he

alleges that the trial court signed an order dismissing the case for want of

prosecution on December 9, 2011. Mason stated in “Plaintiff’s Verified Motion to

Reinstate” which was filed on or about October 28, 2014, that he first received

1 notice that the case had been dismissed in October 2014. On December 5, 2014,

the trial court signed an order denying Mason’s motion to reinstate. Mason argues

that this Court has jurisdiction to hear his appeal because he contends he timely

filed his notice of appeal after the December 5, 2014 order denying his motion to

reinstate. We disagree.

The time for filing a notice of appeal runs from the date of the dismissal

order, not the date the trial court rules on a motion to reinstate. Hartford Ins. Grp.

v. Perez, No. 05-11-00195-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 4460, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Dallas June 13, 2011, no pet.); Weik v. Second Baptist Church of Houston, 988

S.W.2d 437, 438 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied). Mason failed

to perfect an appeal by filing a notice of appeal within the time permitted for either

a regular or a restricted appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. We dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on January 21, 2015 Opinion Delivered January 22, 2015

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ. 2

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

Related

Weik v. Second Baptist Church of Houston
988 S.W.2d 437 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Charles Ray Mason v. Tina D. Roan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-ray-mason-v-tina-d-roan-texapp-2015.