Debra Ann McDonald-Chandler v. Pace Hospital ( 2015 )

Opinion issued May 21, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-15-00138-CV
———————————
DEBRA ANN MCDONALD CHANDLER, Appellant
V.
PACE HOSPITAL, Appellee
On Appeal from the 165th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2011-11499
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Debra Ann McDonald Chandler, attempts to appeal from a final
order granting appellee Pace Hospital’s motion for summary judgment and motion
to dismiss and dismissing appellant’s case, signed on May 30, 2012. We dismiss
the appeal.
Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the judgment is
signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended
to ninety days after the date the judgment is signed if any party timely files a
motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or, under
certain circumstances, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 297, 329b(a), (g). The time to file
a notice of appeal also may be extended if, within fifteen days after the deadline to
file the notice of appeal, a party properly files a motion for extension. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3; see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex.
1997) (holding motion for extension of time is implied when appellant, acting in
good faith, files notice of appeal beyond rule 26.1 deadline but within rule 26.3
fifteen-day extension period).
Here, the trial court signed the final order on May 30, 2012. The clerk’s
record does not reflect that appellant filed a post-judgment motion or a request for
findings of fact and conclusions of law, which would have extended the time to file
a notice of appeal. Accordingly, appellant’s notice of appeal was due by June 29,
2012, or by July 16, 2012, with a fifteen-day extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1,
2
26.1(a), 26.3; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617. Appellant untimely filed her notice of
appeal on February 12, 2015.
On April 2, 2015, we notified appellant that her appeal was subject to
dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless, by April 16, 2015, she filed a written
response showing how this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant responded by filing a motion requesting an extension of
time to file her notice of appeal. However, a motion to extend the time within
which to file a notice of appeal was due by July 16, 2012. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1,
26.3. Appellant’s motion, filed on April 9, 2015, was untimely filed and cannot
extend the deadline to file her notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3; see also
Russell & Smith Ford, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters of Tex. Ins. Co., No. 01-12-
00441-CV, 2012 WL 3629043, at * 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 23,
2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617) (“Once the fifteen-
day period for granting a motion for extension of time has passed, a party can no
longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, we deny
appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file her notice of appeal.
Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed on February 12, 2015, was untimely.
Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the
appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal for want of
3
jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending
motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.
4