Golden Rule Sales and Elia Marin v. Felipe Avila Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 6, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00018-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00018-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

GOLDEN RULE SALES AND ELIA MARIN, Appellants,

v.

FELIPE AVILA JR., Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

This matter is before the Court on appellants’ opposed amended motion for

extension of time to file their notice of appeal and appellee’s response. We are of the

opinion that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. On September 18, 2024, the trial court entered a final judgment in this matter.

Appellants timely filed a motion for new trial on October 17, 2024. Appellants then filed

an untimely notice of appeal on January 14, 2025. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). On

January 14, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants that it appeared that the

appeal was not timely perfected. Appellants were advised that the appeal would be

dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the

Court’s directive. See id. R. 42.3. On January 14, 2025, appellants filed an opposed

motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal and an amended motion for

extension of time to file a notice of appeal on January 22, 2025.

Appellants’ motion and amended motion for extension of time to file a notice of

appeal were filed more than fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal

and are therefore untimely. See id. R. 26.3. We are to construe the rules

of appellate procedure reasonably and liberally so that the right to appeal is not lost by

imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to effectuate the purpose of a

rule. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616–617 (Tex. 1997). Nevertheless, we

are prohibited from enlarging the scope of our jurisdiction by enlarging the time for

perfecting an appeal in a civil case in a manner not provided for by rule. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 2; In re T.W., 89 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, no pet.).

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3 permits an appellate court to dismiss the

appeal for want of jurisdiction for failure to comply with a requirement of the appellate

rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellants’ notice of appeal was untimely, and

appellants’ motions for extension of time to file the notice of appeal were also untimely.

2 The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants’ motions for extension

of time to file the notice of appeal, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over the

appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss both motions for extension of time to file a notice of

appeal and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. id

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 6th day of February, 2025.