Grant Rawston Headifen v. Vanessa Harker ( 2015 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-15-00552-CV
Grant Rawston Headifen, Appellant
v.
Vanessa Harker, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 261ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-FM-13-001842, HONORABLE ORLINDA NARANJO, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 28, 2015, appellant Grant Rawston Headifen filed a notice of appeal.
Appellee Vanessa Harker filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that
the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Headifen appeals from a final judgment signed by the trial court on May 7, 2015.
Headifen timely filed a motion for new trial on June 8, 2015. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 4, 306a, 329b(a).
Headifen’s motion for new trial extended his deadline for filing a notice of appeal until 90 days after
the judgment was signed, making the deadline August 5, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). That
deadline might have been extended until August 20, 2015, if Headifen had filed either a notice
of appeal with the trial court or a motion for extension of time with this Court within 15 days
after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner,
959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 (Tex. 1997) (“[O]nce the period for granting a motion for extension of time
under Rule 41(a)(2) [now Rule 26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court’s
jurisdiction.”). Headifen’s August 28, 2015 notice of appeal is untimely, and we therefore lack
jurisdiction over this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b) (providing that filing notice of appeal
invokes appellate court’s jurisdiction), id. R. 2 (establishing that appellate court may not alter time
for perfecting appeal in civil case).
Upon review of the trial-court clerk’s record, the Clerk of this Court sent Headifen
a letter informing him that the Court appears to lack jurisdiction over the appeal for the reasons
stated above and requesting a response informing us of any basis that exists for jurisdiction. In
response, Headifen asserted that he set his motion for new trial for hearing on the earliest date that
the trial court allowed and that he would have immediately filed his appeal if his motion for new trial
had been denied sooner. The date that the motion for new trial is heard or decided has no bearing
on the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. Once the motion is filed, the only date that matters for
the purpose of the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is the date that the judgment was signed. See
id. R. 26.1(a)(1).
Accordingly, we grant Harker’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________
Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: November 17, 2015
2