Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Trinh Pham, Katherine Crawford & Gary Block

Opinion

Order filed March 12, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00109-CV

____________

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellant

V.

TRINH PHAM, KATHERINE CRAWFORD & GARY BLOCK, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1 Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1016309

ORDER

This is an appeal from a summary judgment signed November 9, 2012.

Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial. The notice of appeal was due February 7, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant filed its notice of appeal on February 14, 2013, 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 fifteen 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

2

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 March 25, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; 10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, the court will consider dismissing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM