Betancourt
v.
Wells Fargo Bank

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURGDec 6, 2018
NUMBER 13-18-00570-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 6, 2018)

NUMBER 13-18-00570-CV

12-06-2018

YASMIN Y. BETANCOURT, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA., Appellee.


On appeal from the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant, Yasmin Y. Betancourt, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-0110-18-E. Judgment in this cause was signed on September 10, 2018. No motion for new trial was filed. We dismiss the 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. Id. R. 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 (Tex. 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.).

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant's notice of appeal was due on October 10, 2018, but was not filed until October 11, 2018. On October 12, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was 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 appellant providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant's 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).

LETICIA HINOJOSA


Justice Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 6th day of December, 2018.