Ted E. Dahl, Trustee v. Commonwealth Land Title

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ted E. Dahl, Trustee v. Commonwealth Land Title

DecidedApril 6, 2006

Docket14-04-01216-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Ted E. Dahl, Trustee v. Commonwealth Land Title (Ted E. Dahl, Trustee v. Commonwealth Land Title) 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

Ted E. Dahl, Trustee v. Commonwealth Land Title, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 6, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 6, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-01216-CV

TED E. DAHL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROSALIE DAHL ESTATE TRUST, Appellant

V.

COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE CO. AND LANDAMERICA COMMONWEALTH TITLE OF HOUSTON, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 280th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 03-46458

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed September 10, 2004. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial and then filed a notice of appeal on December 10, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed outside of the ninety-day period for filing a notice of appeal prescribed by Rule 26.1(a)(1), but within the fifteen-day period permitted for an extension of time under Rule 26.3. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a), 26.3. This case thus presents a question of appellate jurisdiction governed by Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

Under Verburgt, a motion for extension of time to file a late notice of appeal is implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time prescribed in Rule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day grace period of Rule 26.3. Id. To benefit from Verburgt, an 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); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617B18. The failure of an appellant to file a reasonable explanation supports the dismissal of an appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Assoc., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).

Appellant did not file a motion to extend the time to file the notice of appeal. On March 2, 2006, this court ordered appellant to file such a motion on or before March 13, 2006, providing a reasonable explanation for his failure to timely file the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 & 10.5(b). Appellant did not file a motion in response to this order, and accordingly, has not provided any explanation, reasonable or otherwise, to justify the late filing of the notice of appeal.

We therefore dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 6, 2006.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Anderson.

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

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 6, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 6, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-01216-CV

TED E. DAHL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROSALIE DAHL ESTATE TRUST, Appellant

V.

COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE CO. AND LANDAMERICA COMMONWEALTH TITLE OF HOUSTON, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 280th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 03-46458

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed September 10, 2004. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial and then filed a notice of appeal on December 10, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed outside of the ninety-day period for filing a notice of appeal prescribed by Rule 26.1(a)(1), but within the fifteen-day period permitted for an extension of time under Rule 26.3. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a), 26.3. This case thus presents a question of appellate jurisdiction governed by Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

Under Verburgt, a motion for extension of time to file a late notice of appeal is implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time prescribed in Rule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day grace period of Rule 26.3. Id. To benefit from Verburgt, an 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); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617B18. The failure of an appellant to file a reasonable explanation supports the dismissal of an appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Assoc., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).

Appellant did not file a motion to extend the time to file the notice of appeal. On March 2, 2006, this court ordered appellant to file such a motion on or before March 13, 2006, providing a reasonable explanation for his failure to timely file the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 & 10.5(b). Appellant did not file a motion in response to this order, and accordingly, has not provided any explanation, reasonable or otherwise, to justify the late filing of the notice of appeal.

We therefore dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 6, 2006.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Anderson.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ted E. Dahl, Trustee v. Commonwealth Land Title, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ted-e-dahl-trustee-v-commonwealth-land-title-texapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack