Elizabeth Chandini Portteus v. David Dawson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 17, 2024
• Docket: 02-24-00430-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00430-CV ___________________________

ELIZABETH CHANDINI PORTTEUS, Appellant

V.

DAVID DAWSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 16th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 23-2131-16

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Elizabeth Chandini Portteus, appearing pro se, attempts to appeal

from the trial court’s “Order Granting Judgment-Creditors’s [sic] Motion to Compel

and for Monetary Sanctions.” The trial court’s order was signed on September 15,

2023, but the notice of appeal was not filed until over a year later on September, 24,

2024.

On October 1, 2024, we sent the parties a letter stating that the court was

concerned that it might not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed. We stated that unless Portteus or any party desiring to

continue the appeal filed with the court, on or before October 11, 2024, a response

showing grounds for doing so, this appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Portteus filed a response, but it does not show

grounds for continuing the appeal. 1

The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and absent a

timely filed notice of appeal or extension request, we must dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex.

1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Because the notice of

Portteus’s response asks us to extend the time for filing her notice of appeal 1

under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3, but her request is untimely, and even if it were not, Rule 26.3 allows us to extend the notice’s deadline by fifteen days—not a year. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.

2 appeal was untimely, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).2

Per Curiam

Delivered: October 17, 2024

After Portteus responded to our jurisdiction letter, she filed a motion to stay 2

enforcement of the judgment. Having dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction, that motion is now moot.