James Snowden, Ph.D. and Snowden Engineering, Inc. v. Travis Law Firm, P.C.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 18, 2008
• Docket: 14-08-00470-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 18, 2008

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 18, 2008.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00470-CV

JAMES SNOWDEN, Ph.D., and SNOWDEN ENGINEERING, INC., Appellants

V.

TRAVIS LAW FIRM, P.C., Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2007-42118

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed January 25, 2008.  Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial on February 25, 2008.  Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed until June 2, 2008.

When an appellant has filed a timely motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusion of law, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days after the date the judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).

Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed timely. 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 rule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time.  See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26).  However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617-18.  Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed within the fifteen-day period provided by rule 26.3

On November 6, 2008, notification was transmitted to all parties of the Court=s intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).  Appellant filed no response.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed December 18, 2008.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Guzman, and Sullivan.