Opinion
NUMBER 13-16-00450-CV
09-22-2016
GLEN AND PATTY ANDERSON, Appellants, v. ESPERANZA HOMES, INC., Appellee.
On appeal from the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum OpinionPer Curiam
Appellants, Glen and Patty Anderson attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-1354-16-C. Judgment in this cause was signed on April 11, 2016. A motion for reconsideration was filed on April 29, 2016. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant's notice of appeal was due on July 11, 2016, but was not filed until August 10, 2016.
Because the ninetieth day fell on a Sunday, appellants had until the following Monday, July 11, 2016, to file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1. --------
Patty Anderson's notice of appeal states it is being filed by Patty Anderson for Glen and Patty Anderson. A person who is not a licensed lawyer cannot file a notice of appeal on behalf of another person. See Paselk v. Rabun, 293 S.W.3d 600, 605 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (holding notice of appeal filed by one pro se litigant on behalf of himself and second pro se litigant, who did not sign the notice, was not proper as to non-signing litigant and dismissing second litigant's appeal for want of jurisdiction).
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, unless a motion for new trial is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the judgment is signed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a).
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, 617-18, 619 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing: it is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins, 140 S.W.3d 462, 462 (Tex. App. —Amarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App. —Waco 2002, no pet.).
On August 12, 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court's letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellants providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants' failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants' failure to respond to this Court's notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).
PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 22nd day of September, 2016.