Toni K. Smith and Thomas H. Smith v. Jack Mock and in the Matter of Glos Jet

Court of Appeals of Texas

Toni K. Smith and Thomas H. Smith v. Jack Mock and in the Matter of Glos Jet

DecidedJanuary 27, 1999

Docket04-98-00936-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Toni K. Smith and Thomas H. Smith v. Jack Mock and in the Matter of Glos Jet (Toni K. Smith and Thomas H. Smith v. Jack Mock and in the Matter of Glos Jet) 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

Toni K. Smith and Thomas H. Smith v. Jack Mock and in the Matter of Glos Jet, (Tex. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 04-98-00936-CV

Toni K. SMITH and Thomas H. Smith, Appellants

v.

Jack MOCK, Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 3477 Honorable Linda Z. Jones, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 27, 1999

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Toni K. Smith and Thomas H. Smith filed a notice of appeal from a judgment signed June 23, 1998. The Smiths timely filed a motion for new trial that extended the time for perfecting an appeal. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(g); Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Thus, the notice of appeal was due September 21, 1998, or a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due fifteen days later on October 6, 1998. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3. Appellants did not file a timely notice of appeal or a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. However, on November 6, 1998 they filed a notice of appeal.

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, 615 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). But "once the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction." Id.

On December 21, 1998, we ordered appellants to file, on or before January 6, 1999, a response showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and advised appellants the appeal would be dismissed if they failed to satisfactorily respond within the time provided. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), (c). Appellants have not filed a response to our December 21, 1998 order. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

Return to
4th Court of Appeals Opinions

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

No. 04-98-00936-CV

Toni K. SMITH and Thomas H. Smith, Appellants

v.

Jack MOCK, Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 3477 Honorable Linda Z. Jones, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 27, 1999

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Toni K. Smith and Thomas H. Smith filed a notice of appeal from a judgment signed June 23, 1998. The Smiths timely filed a motion for new trial that extended the time for perfecting an appeal. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(g); Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Thus, the notice of appeal was due September 21, 1998, or a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due fifteen days later on October 6, 1998. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3. Appellants did not file a timely notice of appeal or a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. However, on November 6, 1998 they filed a notice of appeal.

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, 615 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). But "once the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction." Id.

On December 21, 1998, we ordered appellants to file, on or before January 6, 1999, a response showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and advised appellants the appeal would be dismissed if they failed to satisfactorily respond within the time provided. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), (c). Appellants have not filed a response to our December 21, 1998 order. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

Return to
4th Court of Appeals Opinions

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Toni K. Smith and Thomas H. Smith v. Jack Mock and in the Matter of Glos Jet, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toni-k-smith-and-thomas-h-smith-v-jack-mock-and-in-texapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack