Rodney Underwood v. OCWEN Loan Servicing, GMAC Mortgage and American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Motion Granted, Appeal Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed July 2,
    2015.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-15-00455-CV
    RODNEY UNDERWOOD, Appellant
    V.
    OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, GMAC MORTGAGE AND AMERICAN
    HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING INC., ET AL, Appellees
    On Appeal from the 11th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 2012-47388
    MEMORANDUM                      OPINION
    This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed November 17, 2014.
    Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial on December 17, 2014. Appellant’s
    notice of appeal was filed May 27, 2015. On June 10, 2015, appellee Ocwen Loan
    Servicing, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
    Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed no response.
    When appellant has filed a timely motion for new trial, motion to modify the
    judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusion of law,
    the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days after the date the judgment is
    signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).
    Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed timely. 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 (1997) (construing the predecessor to
    Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to
    file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3,
    10.5(b)(1)(C); 
    Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617-18
    ; Miller v. Greenpark Surgery
    Center Assocs., Ltd., 
    974 S.W.2d 805
    , 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998,
    no pet.). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within the fifteen-day period
    provided by Rule 26.3.
    Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-15-00455-CV

Filed Date: 7/2/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/2/2015