Michael Norvil v. Bank of America

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 4, 2013
• Docket: 14-13-00237-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Order filed April 4, 2013

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-13-00237-CV ____________

MICHAEL NORVIL, Appellant

V.

BANK OF AMERICA, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1022597

ORDER

This appeal is from a judgment signed December 3, 2012. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial. The notice of appeal was due March 4, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant, however, filed his notice of appeal on March 18, 2013, a date within 15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is Anecessarily 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 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.CHouston [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 12 days after the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3;12.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM