Tavarius Williams v. Walden on Lake Houston Community Services Association Inc.

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: February 3, 2026
• Docket: 01-25-00808-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued February 3, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00808-CV ——————————— TAVARIUS WILLIAMS, Appellant V. WALDEN ON LAKE HOUSTON COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 127th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2024-47562

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 1, 2025, appellant Tavarius Williams filed a notice of appeal

seeking to appeal a default judgment signed on July 30, 2025. On October 6, 2025,

appellee filed a letter with our Court asserting that this appeal must be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction because appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a) (requiring notice of appeal to be filed within thirty days after

judgment is signed or within ninety days if party timely files motion for new trial).

After the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the appeal was subject to

dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, appellant failed to demonstrate grounds for

continuing the appeal. Concluding that the notice of appeal is untimely, we dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Notice of Appeal Deadline

Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the judgment is

signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended

to ninety days after the date the judgment is signed if, within thirty days after the

judgment is signed, any 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); TEX. R. CIV. P.

329b(a), (g). 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 properly files a

motion for extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3.

Here, the trial court signed its default judgment on July 30, 2025. Because the

record does not include any post-judgment motions extending the notice of appeal

deadline, appellant’s notice of appeal was due within thirty days of the judgment—

2 i.e., by August 29, 2025. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Appellant’s October 1, 2025

notice of appeal was filed thirty-three days after the deadline.

Extension of Appellate Deadlines Based on Lack of Notice

Appellant’s notice of appeal asserts that “the default judgment was not sent to

[him] until September 3, 2025, preventing [him] from being notified of default

judgment within 30 days to appeal.” Although Texas Rule of Civil Procedure

306a(4) and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.2(a)(1) allow an extension of

appellate deadlines when an appellant does not receive timely notice of the

judgment, the rules require that the appellant file a motion in the trial court. See TEX.

R. CIV. P. 306a(5) (“In order to establish the application of paragraph (4) of this rule,

the party adversely affected is required to prove in the trial court, on sworn motion

and notice, the date on which the party or his attorney first either received a notice

of the judgment or acquired actual knowledge of the signing and that this date was

more than twenty days after the judgment was signed”); TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(b)

(procedure for gaining additional time to file documents due to lack of timely notice

of judgment is governed by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a(5)). Without such a

motion, the extension provided by these rules does not apply. See Brown Mech.

Servs., Inc. v. Mountbatten Sur. Co., Inc., 377 S.W.3d 40, 44 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (concluding that appellant failed to establish application of

Rule 306a because record did not contain sworn motion under Rule 306a(5));

3 Yocham v. Farmers Tex. Cty. Mut. Co., No. 03-14-00572-CV, 2015 WL 658144, at

*2 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 12, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.). (dismissing appeal for

want of jurisdiction because appellant first asserted Rule 306a in court of appeals

and “[appellant] does not contend, nor does the record suggest, that a sworn motion

under Rule 306a was ever filed in the trial court”).

On October 28, 2025, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that, because

the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and no extension of appellate deadlines

applied, the appeal was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction unless appellant

filed a written responds demonstrating the Court’s jurisdiction over the appeal. On

November 10, 2025, appellant filed a response asserting that he recently filed a Rule

306a motion with the trial court in response to our notice of intent to dismiss. The

response attaches a motion filed with the trial court on November 7, 2025, requesting

that the court issue an order “establishing that the date of notice or actual knowledge

of the July 30, 2025, judgment was no earlier than September 10, 2025.” As

discussed below, appellant’s response fails to demonstrate a basis for jurisdiction

because, among other things, the trial court has lost plenary power to consider such

a motion.

A motion under Rule 306a(5) may be filed “at any time within the trial court’s

plenary jurisdiction measured from the date determined under Rule 306a(4).” John

v. Marshall Health Servs., Inc., 58 S.W.3d 738, 741 (Tex. 2001). For purposes of a

4 Rule 306a(5) motion, plenary power is measured from the date the movant asserts

he first learned of the trial court’s judgment. See In re Lynd Co., 195 S.W.3d 682,

685 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding); Goodwill v. Tex. A&M Univ. Med. Ctr., No. 03-

04-00255-CV, 2004 WL 1469353, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin July 1, 2004, no pet.)

(mem. op.).

Here, appellant asserts in his notice of appeal that he was not sent notice of

the judgment until September 3, 2025, and his November 7, 2025 motion requests

that the trial court “[f]ind and order that Appellant first received notice or actual

knowledge of the judgment on or about September 10, 2025 . . . .” Applying the

September 10, 2025 date in appellant’s motion as the date appellant asserts that he

first learned of the trial court’s judgment, because no post-judgment motions were

filed extending plenary power, the trial court’s plenary power expired thirty days

after the alleged notice date – on October 10, 2025. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(d)-(e);

John, 58 S.W.3d at 741; In re Lynd Co., 195 S.W.3d at 685. Thus, the trial court no

longer has plenary power to consider appellant’s November 7, 2025 Rule 306a(5)

motion alleging notice was not received until September 10, 2025. Accordingly,

appellate deadlines in this case cannot be extended for lack of notice.

Conclusion

Appellant’s October 1, 2025 notice of appeal was untimely filed thirty-three

days after the notice of appeal deadline. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Absent a timely

5 filed notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction over an appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Any pending motions

are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Johnson.