Eddie James v. WoodForest National Bank
This text of Eddie James v. WoodForest National Bank (Eddie James v. WoodForest National Bank) 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.
Opinion
Opinion issued March 14, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-22-00899-CV ——————————— EDDIE JAMES, Appellant V. WOODFOREST NATIONAL BANK, Appellee
On Appeal from the 333rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2022-09837
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Eddie James, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal of the trial
court’s October 18, 2022 judgment.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Any party “seek[ing] to alter the trial court’s judgment” must timely file a
notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(c). If a party fails to timely file a notice of
appeal, we have no jurisdiction to address the merits of that party’s appeal. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 25.1(b); In re K.L.L., 506 S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (without timely notice of appeal, appellate court lacks
jurisdiction over appeal); Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302
S.W.3d 542, 545–46 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (timely filing of notice of
appeal is jurisdictional prerequisite).
Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the trial court signs
its judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is
extended to ninety days after the judgment is signed if, within thirty days after the
judgment is signed, a party timely files a motion for new trial, motion to modify the
judgment, motion to reinstate, or, under certain circumstances, a request for findings
of fact and conclusions of law. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a); see also TEX. R. CIV. P.
329b. The time to file a notice of appeal may also be extended if, within fifteen days
after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, a party files a notice of appeal and a
motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal that complies with Texas Rule
of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b). See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3.
Here, the trial court signed its final judgment on October 18, 2022. The record
does not reflect that appellant filed any post-judgment motions extending the
2 notice-of-appeal deadline. Thus, appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed on
or before November 17, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Appellant filed his notice
of appeal on December 1, 2022 but did not file a motion for extension of time to file
a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3.
Although appellant did not file a motion for extension of time to file a notice
of appeal when he filed his notice of appeal, a motion for extension of time is
necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal
beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but within the
fifteen-day extension period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3,
and the appellant reasonably explains the need for an extension of time. TEX. R.
APP. P. 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997); In re
A.J.U., No. 01-16-00371-CV, 2016 WL 3946925, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] July 19, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). Here, appellant filed his notice of appeal
within the fifteen-day extension period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 26.3; thus, a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal may
be implied as to his appeal if he has provided this Court with a reasonable
explanation of the need for an extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C),
(b)(2)(A), 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998); Pasha
v. YP Advert., L.P., No. 01-14-00456-CV, 2014 WL 4116456, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 21, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (although appellants’ notice
3 of appeal filed within fifteen-day extension period, appellants still required to offer
reasonable explanation of need for extension).
On February 2, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that his appeal
was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction unless, by February 16, 2023,
appellant filed a written response providing a reasonable explanation for the
untimely filing of his notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c); cf.
Hernandez v. McLane, No. 07-19-00422-CV, 2020 WL 62627, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo Jan. 6, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellant did not adequately respond.
Because appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation for his untimely
filed notice of appeal, we cannot grant an implied motion for extension. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3; Hernandez, 2020 WL 626627, at *1. Accordingly, we
dismiss appellant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c),
43.2(f); Renovation Genius LLC v. Brooks, No. 01-21-00063-CV, 2023 WL 17539,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 3, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing
appeal for lack of jurisdiction where appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely and
appellant did not provide any reasonable explanation for failing to timely file notice
of appeal); see also Hernandez, 2020 WL 626627, at *1; In re H.H., No.
07-15-00308-CV, 2015 WL 5559922, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 18, 2015,
no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction where appellant filed
notice of appeal within fifteen-day extension period but did not respond to appellate
4 court’s notice to provide reasonable explanation for untimely notice of appeal). We
dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Eddie James v. WoodForest National Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eddie-james-v-woodforest-national-bank-texapp-2023.