Wadkins v. Diversified Contractors

Court of Appeals of Texas

Wadkins v. Diversified Contractors

714 S.W.2d 136, 1986 Tex. App. LEXIS 8185

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedAugust 7, 1986

Docket01-86-0496-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 714 S.W.2d 136 (Wadkins v. Diversified Contractors) 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

Wadkins v. Diversified Contractors, 714 S.W.2d 136, 1986 Tex. App. LEXIS 8185 (Tex. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

WARREN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Summary judgment was granted against appellants on December 11, 1985. No motion for new trial was filed until March 26, 1986, when appellants filed a motion pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 306a(4), claiming that they received no notice of the entry of judgment and did not learn of the judgment until February 24, 1986. The cost bond was not filed until June 6, 1986. We will assume that appellants met the requirements of rule 306a(4), and that the time table for filing the cost bond began running on February 24, 1986, the day appellant learned of the judgment.

An appellant perfects his appeal by filing a cost bond, deposit of cash or affidavit within 90 days from the date of judgment when a motion for new trial is filed. Tex.R.Civ.P. 354, 356. This time limit is jurisdictional. Davies v. Massey, 561 S.W.2d 799, 800-801 (Tex.1978).

An appellant may file the cost bond as much as 105 days after judgment but only if a proper motion for extension of time is filed within the same time period. Tex.R.Civ.P. 356(b). If no motion for extension of time is filed within the 15 day grace period provided for in rule 356(b), this Court has no authority to hear the appeal. Davies v. Massey, 561 S.W.2d at 800.

Appellants did not file their appeal bond until 102 days after the date the judgment was entered. More importantly, appellants did not file a motion for extension of time to file the bond. Consequently, we have no authority to entertain the appeal, and dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

OPINION

WARREN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Summary judgment was granted against appellants on December 11, 1985. No motion for new trial was filed until March 26, 1986, when appellants filed a motion pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 306a(4), claiming that they received no notice of the entry of judgment and did not learn of the judgment until February 24, 1986. The cost bond was not filed until June 6, 1986. We will assume that appellants met the requirements of rule 306a(4), and that the time table for filing the cost bond began running on February 24, 1986, the day appellant learned of the judgment.

An appellant perfects his appeal by filing a cost bond, deposit of cash or affidavit within 90 days from the date of judgment when a motion for new trial is filed. Tex.R.Civ.P. 354, 356. This time limit is jurisdictional. Davies v. Massey, 561 S.W.2d 799, 800-801 (Tex.1978).

An appellant may file the cost bond as much as 105 days after judgment but only if a proper motion for extension of time is filed within the same time period. Tex.R.Civ.P. 356(b). If no motion for extension of time is filed within the 15 day grace period provided for in rule 356(b), this Court has no authority to hear the appeal. Davies v. Massey, 561 S.W.2d at 800.

Appellants did not file their appeal bond until 102 days after the date the judgment was entered. More importantly, appellants did not file a motion for extension of time to file the bond. Consequently, we have no authority to entertain the appeal, and dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

714 S.W.2d 136, 1986 Tex. App. LEXIS 8185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wadkins-v-diversified-contractors-texapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack