Olayiwola Adebisi v. Office of Attorney General
Opinion
Opinion issued April 24, 2025
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
“appealing the Contested Order Establishing the Parent-Child Relationship signed by the trial court on the 29th day of October, 2024.” We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Any party “seek[ing] to alter the trial court’s . . . order” must timely file a notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(c). If a party fails to timely file a notice of appeal, we have no jurisdiction to address the merits of that party’s appeal and must dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b); In re K.L.L., 506 S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (holding that without timely notice of appeal, appellate court lacks jurisdiction over appeal); Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d 542, 545–46 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (holding that timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional prerequisite).
A notice of appeal is generally due within thirty days after the trial court signs its judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended to ninety days after the judgment is signed if, within thirty days after the judgment is signed, a party timely files a motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or, under certain circumstances, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b. The time to file a notice of appeal may also be extended if, within fifteen days after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, a party files a notice of appeal and a
motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b). See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3.
Contrary to Appellant’s assertion in his amended notice of appeal, the trial court’s “Contested Order Establishing the Parent-Child Relationship” from which he appeals was signed on June 25, 2024, not October 29, 2024. The order signed on October 29, 2024 is an order denying as untimely Appellant’s “Request for De Novo Hearing” of the trial court’s “Contested Order Establishing the Parent-Child Relationship,” which is not appealable.1 Further, because it was untimely filed, Appellant’s “Request for De Novo Hearing” did not extend the deadline to file a notice of appeal from the trial court’s June 25, 2025 order. Appellant’s notice of appeal was thus due within thirty days after the trial court’s order was signed—on or before July 25, 2024—or by August 9, 2024 with a fifteen-day extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Appellant did not file his notice of appeal of the trial court’s order until October 17, 2024.
Without a timely filed notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction over Appellant’s appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1. On February 27, 2025, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
1 The trial court denied Appellant’s “Request for De Novo Hearing” as untimely because it was filed on August 2, 2024, well after the trial court’s plenary power expired.
unless, within ten days of the date of the notice, he filed a written response demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction over his appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed a response arguing we have jurisdiction over his appeal because he mailed his “Request for De Novo Hearing” to the trial court on June 27, 2024, and that the court received it on July 2, 2024. Appellant further contends that he refiled his request on August 2, 2024 “because he was told by the clerk . . . that the trial court did not receive the Request for De Novo [Hearing], even though he provided proof that the trial court did in fact receive[] [it] . . . .” Assuming Appellant timely filed his “Request for De Novo Hearing,” his notice of appeal would have been due within ninety days after the trial court’s order was signed—on or before September 23, 2024. Appellant’s notice of appeal thus remains untimely.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Morgan, and Johnson.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Olayiwola Adebisi v. Office of Attorney General (Olayiwola Adebisi v. Office of Attorney General) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.