Piney Woods Ventures, LLC v. Oscar Chahine

Opinion

DISMISS: Opinion issued November 27, 2012

In The Gmtrt uf ppim1s if! 1utrirt nf Jixa at a11zt No. 05-12-01 062-C V

PINEY WOODS VENTURES, LLC, ET AL, Appellants

oSCAR CHAHINE, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 74339-86

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, O’Neill, and Murphy Opinion By Justice O’Neill

By letter dated September 27, 2012, the Court sent appellants a letter questioning its

jurisdiction over the appeal. Specifically, it appears the notice of appeal was untimely. The Court

requested that appellants file, within ten days, a jurisdictional brief explaining how this Court has

jurisdiction over the appeal. As of today’s date, appellant has not filed a jurisdictional brief:

In the absence of a postjudgment motion extending the appellate timetable, a notice of appeal

is due thirty days after the date the judgment is signed. See TEx. R. APP. P. 26.1. A motion for new trial

will extend the appellate timetable if it is filed within thirty days after the date the judgment is signed.

See TEx. R. Civ. P. 329b(a). The trial court signed the judgment on April 30, 201 2. A motion Ibr new trial was due on or

hethre May 30. 2012. Appellants filed their motion for new trial on May 31, 2012, one day past the

deadline) Because appellants’ motion for new trial was untimely filed, the notice of appeal was due on

May 30, 2012. Appellants tiled their notice of appeal on August 1,2012. Without a timely filed notice

of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction .See Ttx. R. App, P. 25.1(h). Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal. See Tiix. R. App. P. 42.3(a) & (c).

I JUSTICE

121062F.P05

By letter dated August 31, 2012, the Court gave appellants an opportunity to provide the Court with proofofseiee that the motion for new trial was served on or before May 30, 2012 See SEX. R. Civ. P. 21 a. The Court did not receive any response from appellants. Qiiiarl til pizti ift1i j’frjrt tf Icxai at 3a1ta

JUDGMENT PINEY WOO1)S VENTURES, LLC. Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court CAMERON CRAVEY, KIMBERLY of Dallas County, Texas. (ThCLNo. 74339 CRAVEY, THE ASHLEY CLAIRE 86). CRAVEY, ALEXIS CHLOE CRAVEY, AND Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, Justices JOHN CAMERON CRAVEY SPECIAL Bridges and Murphy, participating. TRUST, Appellants

No, 05-i2O1O62-CV V.

OSCAR CHAHINE, RICK COCHRAN. RONALD ( OOKSL’’ JEFI RE DREVNIAN IORRAINL Ci FORMLF C:HARLES GALl AGHER. MICHAEL GEBHARDT TRUST, ROBERT HAWLEY. DOUG HUMPHREY, GAIL JOHNSON, JiM JORDAN. MARK LANDMADE. CHRISTINI L OPLZ-RINCON ART LOWE THOMAS LUTZ, EDWARI) M1TTELMAN, MIKE MOORL LDWARD MURPFIY MICHAEL NORTON GEORGE SCHMID F EDWARD TALARSKJ, AND BEVERLY WANKE, Appellees

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellees, Oscar Chahine, Rick Cochran, Ronald Cooksey, Jeffrey Drewniany, Lorraine Ci. Formet, Charles Gallagher, Michael Gebhardt Trust, Robert Hawley, Doug Humphrey, Gail Johnson. Jim Jordan, Mark Landmade, Christine Lopez-Rincon, Art Lowe, Thomas Lutz. Edward Mitteiman, Mike Moore, Edward Murphy, Michael Norton, George Schmidt. Edward Talarski, and I3everly Wanke, recover their costs of the appeal from appellants, Piney Woods Ventures, LLC, Cameron Cravey, Kimberly Cravey, The Ashley Claire Cravey, Alexis Chloe Cravey, and John Cameron Cravey Special Trust.

Judgment entered November 27, 2012. Ii

,X }IAELJ.O’NE L JUSTICE / /1