FORRESTER v. MEISSNER

No. 12-17-00233-CV.

JOHN FORRESTER, Appellant, v. RON MEISSNER AND CONNIE MEISSNER, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

John Forrester, for Appellant, Pro se.

Frank Mason , for Ron Meissner, Appellee.

Frank Mason , for Connie Meissner, Appellee.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The trial court's judgment was signed on April 12, 2017. Under the rules of appellate procedure, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on May 12. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Thus, Appellant's notice of appeal was due on or before July 11. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on July 17, thus, it was untimely.

Rule 26.3 provides that a motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal must be filed within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. On July 28, this Court notified Appellant that the information received in this appeal does not show the jurisdiction of this Court, i.e., there is no timely notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 37.1. However, Appellant was further notified that, pursuant to Rule 26.3 and Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997), we would imply a motion to extend time for filing the notice of appeal. We informed Appellant that Rule 26.3 requires a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b). See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b). Thus, we notified Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless on or before August 7, 2017, Appellant informed this Court, in writing, of facts that reasonably explained his need for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. The deadline for responding to this Court's notice has expired, and Appellant has not responded to the notice.

Because this court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal except as provided by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 26.3, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).(PUBLISH)

JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

FootNotes


1. We also note that, on July 28, 2017, the clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the filing fee in this appeal is due. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5. Appellant was informed that failure to remit the filing fee on or before August 7, 2017, would result in the Court's taking appropriate action, including dismissal of the case without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The date for remitting the filing fee has passed, and Appellant has not complied with the Court's request. Thus, Appellant's appeal is also subject to dismissal for failure, after notice, to comply with Rule 5. See id.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases