Nathan Hilton, M.D v. Nevillyn Wettermark

Opinion

Order filed October 21, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-14-00697-CV ____________

NATHAN HILTON, M.D, Appellant

V.

NEVILLYN WETTERMARK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 295th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013-48056

ORDER This is an accelerated appeal from an interlocutory order signed August 5, 2014. The clerk’s record was filed October 16, 2014. The notice of appeal was due August 25, 2014. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b) (requiring notice of appeal in an accelerated appeal to be filed within 20 days after the order is signed). Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed one day late, on August 26, 2014. Although appellant’s notice of appeal was filed within the fifteen-day period for requesting an extension of time, appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file 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). While an extension may be implied, an 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 within 15 days of the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; 10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM