Ralph O. Douglas v. Elise Selma Douglas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 26, 2009
Docket14-08-00277-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Ralph O. Douglas v. Elise Selma Douglas (Ralph O. Douglas v. Elise Selma Douglas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ralph O. Douglas v. Elise Selma Douglas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 26, 2009

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 26, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00277-CV

RALPH O. DOUGLAS, Appellant

V.

ELISE SELMA DOUGLAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 257th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2000-42726

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 December 3, 2007.  A timely motion for new trial was filed January 2, 2008.  Appellant=s notice of appeal was filed April 2, 2008.


When 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 December 3, 2009, 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=s response fails to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Boyce.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Verburgt v. Dorner
959 S.W.2d 615 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ralph O. Douglas v. Elise Selma Douglas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ralph-o-douglas-v-elise-selma-douglas-texapp-2009.