Alicia L. Brannon v. Toyota Industries Commercial Finance, Inc. ( 2021 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-21-00090-CV
ALICIA L. BRANNON, APPELLANT
V.
TOYOTA INDUSTRIES COMMERCIAL FINANCE, INC., APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 368th District Court
Williamson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 18-0729-C368, Honorable Rick J. Kennon, Presiding
June 22, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Appellant Alicia L. Brannon appeals from the trial court’s Final Summary
Judgment.1 Pending before the Court is Appellee Toyota Industries Commercial Finance,
Inc.’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We grant the motion and dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction.
1
Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the
Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001
(West 2013).
Toyota sued Brannon for breach of a guaranty agreement, and Brannon
countersued. Toyota later moved for summary judgment on its claims and on Brannon’s
counterclaims. On January 21, 2021, the trial court signed a Final Summary Judgment,
granting Toyota’s summary judgment motion in its entirety. On February 3, 2021,
Brannon filed a motion seeking an extension of time to request findings of fact and
conclusions of law. By order signed February 23, 2021, the trial court granted the
extension, and Brannon filed the request for findings. She filed a notice of appeal on April
19, 2021, eighty-eight days after the signing of the Final Summary Judgment.
A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex. 1997). To be
timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after a judgment is signed or
within ninety days if a motion for new trial, a motion to modify the judgment, or, where
appropriate, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law is timely filed. TEX. R.
APP. P. 26.1(a).
In its motion to dismiss, Toyota asserts that Brannon’s notice of appeal was due
within thirty days after the Final Summary Judgment was signed because no motion for
new trial or motion to modify the judgment was filed and the request for findings was
improper following a summary judgment. In response, Brannon argues that the appellate
deadline was extended because (1) her motion for additional time to request findings
operated as a motion to modify the judgment; (2) the trial court’s February 23 order
granting additional time to request findings was a modification of the Final Summary
Judgment; and (3) her request for findings were proper. We disagree with Brannon’s
contentions.
2
First, a motion to modify the judgment extends appellate deadlines only if it seeks
a substantive change in the existing judgment. Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip.,
Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 314 (Tex. 2000). Brannon’s motion for extension did not request
any change in the judgment, but only sought additional time to file a request for findings
and conclusions. Therefore, the motion did not extend the notice of appeal deadline.
Second, the February 23 order made no change to the Final Summary Judgment.
Therefore, it is not a “modified, corrected or reformed” judgment that restarts the appellate
deadlines. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(h). Even had the trial court modified its judgment on
February 23, the time for appeal runs from the date the modified judgment is signed and
Brannon’s April 19 notice of appeal would remain untimely.
Third, requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law only extend the deadline
“if findings and conclusions either are required by the Rules of Civil Procedure or, if not
required, could properly be considered by the appellate court.” TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(4).
Findings of fact are not proper when judgment is rendered as a matter of law, such as
summary judgments. Ikb Indus. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1997).
Thus, a request for findings does not extend appellate deadlines after a final summary
judgment. Linwood v. NCNB Tex., 885 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam).
Brannon’s notice of appeal was due before the end of the first day the district
clerk’s office was open following thirty days after the judgment was signed, viz. Monday,
February 22, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 4.1(a). The notice of appeal was not filed,
however, until nearly two months later, on April 19, 2021. This Court has no discretion to
permit Brannon’s untimely filed notice of appeal to confer jurisdiction over this appeal.
3
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.2 See TEX. R. APP. P.
42.3(a).
Per Curiam
2 For the reasons provided herein, we also deny Brannon’s pending motion to remand the appeal
to the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.
4