in the Interest of E.A.O. and R.R.B., Children ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • Opinion filed November 2, 2017
    In The
    Eleventh Court of Appeals
    __________
    No. 11-17-00297-CV
    __________
    IN THE INTEREST OF E.A.O. AND R.R.B., CHILDREN
    On Appeal from the 446th District Court
    Ector County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. E-3554-PC
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    On October 18, 2017, the mother of E.A.O. and R.R.B. filed a notice of appeal
    in which she sought to appeal an order of termination that was signed by the trial court
    on June 13, 2017. When the appeal was docketed in this court, we notified Appellant
    by letter that it appeared to this court that the notice of appeal was untimely filed, and
    we requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue the appeal.
    Appellant promptly responded to this court’s letter by filing a motion for
    extension of time to file her appeal. In her motion, Appellant asserts that she “had
    been checking the Clerk’s office because the Order was expected,” that the order “did
    not appear” on the two occasions from June to August that she checked, and that she
    did not receive actual notice of the termination order until September 29, 2017. The
    district clerk acknowledges that her office inadvertently failed to provide notice to
    Appellant until September 29, 2017. When a party fails to receive timely notice of an
    appealable order, Rule 306a.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure extends the time
    in which a notice of appeal may be filed. However, “in no event shall such periods
    begin more than ninety days after the original judgment or appealable order was
    signed.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a.4; accord TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2.
    The documents on file in this appeal show that, on June 13, 2017, the trial court
    signed an order of termination that was a final, appealable order. Ninety days from
    that date was September 11, 2017. Thus, even if Rule 306a.4 applied, the latest
    possible due date for Appellant’s notice of appeal was twenty days after September 11,
    which would have been Monday, October 2, 2017, as extended.                 See TEX. R.
    APP. P. 4.1, 4.2, 26.1. Appellant did not file her notice of appeal until October 18—
    after the deadline and also after the time in which this court would be authorized to
    grant a fifteen-day extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Absent a timely notice of
    appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Wilkins v.
    Methodist Health Care Sys., 
    160 S.W.3d 559
    , 564 (Tex. 2005); Garza v. Hibernia
    Nat’l Bank, 
    227 S.W.3d 233
    , 233–34 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.);
    In re J.A.T., No. 04-12-00183-CV, 
    2012 WL 3732824
    (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug.
    29, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction under
    facts similar to those before us); see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 
    959 S.W.2d 615
    , 617
    (Tex. 1997). Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 2, we are prohibited from suspending the
    Rules of Appellate Procedure “to alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case.”
    Because we are without jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.
    42.3(a).
    This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
    November 2, 2017                                             PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
    Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-17-00297-CV

Filed Date: 11/2/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2017