Full text
Carroll Craig Bolin and Mary Kathalina Bolin v. First State Bank
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00436-CV
CARROLL CRAIG BOLIN AND APPELLANTS MARY KATHALINA BOLIN
V.
FIRST STATE BANK APPELLEE
----------
FROM THE 271ST DISTRICT COURT OF WISE COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
Appellants Carroll Craig Bolin and Mary Kathalina Bolin attempt to appeal from the trial court’s summary judgment signed on October 28, 2013. Because no post-judgment motion was filed to extend the appellate deadline, Appellants’ notice of appeal was due November 27, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Appellants did not file their notice of appeal until December 10, 2013.
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
On December 13, 2013, we notified Appellants of our concern that this court lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because Appellants’ notice of appeal was not timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. We informed Appellants that unless they or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal on or before December 23, 2013, this appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b), 42.3(a). We received no response.
The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and absent a timely-filed notice of appeal or extension request, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). 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 period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing deadline under rule 26.3. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; see also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3. Even when a motion for extension is implied, however, it is still necessary for the appellant to reasonably explain the need for an extension. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617.
Because Appellants’ notice of appeal was untimely and because Appellants did not provide any explanation for needing an extension, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Jones, *3 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; Chilkewitz v. Winter, 25 S.W.3d 382, 383 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ. DELIVERED: March 13, 2014