Estate of Kreft, Matter Of

Court of Appeals of Texas

Estate of Kreft, Matter Of

674 S.W.2d 322, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 5742

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 13, 1983

DocketNo. 01-83-0526-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 674 S.W.2d 322 (Estate of Kreft, Matter Of) 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

Estate of Kreft, Matter Of, 674 S.W.2d 322, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 5742 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in a will contest. The transcript and statement of facts were due to be filed in this court on June 13, 1983. Any request for extension of time for late filing was due by June 28, 1983. A motion to extend time to file a statement of facts was received June 8, 1983. However, a motion to extend time to file the transcript was not filed until July 18,1983, six days after receipt of the transcript, July 12, 1983.

It appears that appellant’s motion to extend time to file statement of facts was timely, and could therefore have been properly granted. However, the motion to extend time to file the transcript was filed twenty days after the Rule 21c deadline. The timely motion to extend time to file the statement of facts does not mention the transcript and cannot be construed to include the transcript. See Escamillo v. Strong, 582 S.W.2d 605 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1977, no writ). This court has no power to consider a motion to extend filed after June 28,1983, regardless of the reason for late filing. B.D. Click Co., Inc. v. Safari Drilling Corp., 638 S.W.2d 860 (Tex.1982).

In the absence of a timely filed transcript, nothing is presented for appellate review. Briscoe v. Gulf Supply Co., Inc., 612 S.W.2d 88 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

Tex.R.Civ.P. 452.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in a will contest. The transcript and statement of facts were due to be filed in this court on June 13, 1983. Any request for extension of time for late filing was due by June 28, 1983. A motion to extend time to file a statement of facts was received June 8, 1983. However, a motion to extend time to file the transcript was not filed until July 18,1983, six days after receipt of the transcript, July 12, 1983.

It appears that appellant’s motion to extend time to file statement of facts was timely, and could therefore have been properly granted. However, the motion to extend time to file the transcript was filed twenty days after the Rule 21c deadline. The timely motion to extend time to file the statement of facts does not mention the transcript and cannot be construed to include the transcript. See Escamillo v. Strong, 582 S.W.2d 605 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1977, no writ). This court has no power to consider a motion to extend filed after June 28,1983, regardless of the reason for late filing. B.D. Click Co., Inc. v. Safari Drilling Corp., 638 S.W.2d 860 (Tex.1982).

In the absence of a timely filed transcript, nothing is presented for appellate review. Briscoe v. Gulf Supply Co., Inc., 612 S.W.2d 88 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

Tex.R.Civ.P. 452.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

674 S.W.2d 322, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 5742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-kreft-matter-of-texapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack