Yolanda D. Munoz and Eucaris E. Rodriguez v. Miguel A. Maravilla and Yesenia Del Carmen Rodriguez
This text of Yolanda D. Munoz and Eucaris E. Rodriguez v. Miguel A. Maravilla and Yesenia Del Carmen Rodriguez (Yolanda D. Munoz and Eucaris E. Rodriguez v. Miguel A. Maravilla and Yesenia Del Carmen Rodriguez) 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.
Opinion
Opinion issued July 30, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00442-CV ——————————— YOLANDA D. MUNOZ AND EUCARIS E. RODRIGUEZ, Appellants V. MIGUEL A. MARAVILLA AND YESENIA DEL CARMEN RODRIGUEZ, Appellees
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1180190
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On June 7, 2024, appellants, Yolanda D. Munoz and Eucaris E. Rodriguez,
filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s February 21, 2024 final judgment.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Absent a timely filed notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction over an appeal.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1. Generally, a notice of appeal of a final judgment must be
filed within thirty days after the entry of judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1.
Accordingly, in order to invoke this Court’s appellate jurisdiction over an appeal
from the trial court’s February 21, 2024 final judgment, appellants were required to
file their notice of appeal on or before March 22, 2024.
However, where a party timely files certain post-judgment motions, the
deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended to ninety days after the entry of
judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). Post-judgment motions generally must
be filed within thirty days after the judgment or other order complained of is signed.
See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a), (g).
The appellate record reflects that appellants timely filed a post-judgment
motion with the trial court. Accordingly, the deadline for appellants to file their
notice of appeal was extended to May 21, 2024. Appellants’ June 7, 2024 notice of
appeal was still not timely filed.
Notably, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3 allows for an extension of
the deadline to file a notice of appeal if, within fifteen days after the deadline for
filing a notice of appeal, an appellant files a notice of appeal in the trial court, and a
motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal in the appellate court. Taking
this extension into account, appellants were required to file a notice of appeal in the
2 trial court, and a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal in this Court,
no later than June 5, 2024.
On June 21, 2024, appellants filed an “Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to
File Notice of Appeal.” As noted above, taking into account the extension provided
by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3, appellants’ deadline to file a motion for
extension of time to file a notice of appeal was June 5, 2024. Because appellants’
motion for extension was not timely filed, the Court denied appellants’ motion in an
order dated June 27, 2024. The Court’s June 27, 2024 order further notified
appellants that it appeared that the Court lacked jurisdiction over their appeal
because their notice of appeal from the trial court’s February 21, 2024 final judgment
was not timely filed. Appellants were directed to file a written response within ten
days demonstrating, with citation to law and the record, that the Court had
jurisdiction over the appeal. Despite notice that the appeal was subject to dismissal,
appellants did not adequately respond to the Court’s June 27, 2024 order.
Because neither appellants’ June 7, 2024 notice of appeal, nor their June 27,
2024 motion for extension of time to file their notice of appeal were timely filed, the
Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 42.3(a), (c), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
3 PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, Guerra.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Yolanda D. Munoz and Eucaris E. Rodriguez v. Miguel A. Maravilla and Yesenia Del Carmen Rodriguez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yolanda-d-munoz-and-eucaris-e-rodriguez-v-miguel-a-maravilla-and-texapp-2024.