Barton Wade v. SABR Mortgage Loan 2008-1 REO Subsidiary-1 LLC ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                         ACCEPTED
    04-15-00683-CV
    FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
    SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
    11/12/2015 9:57:59 AM
    KEITH HOTTLE
    CLERK
    NO. 04-15-00683-CV
    FILED IN
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS    4th COURT OF APPEALS
    SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
    FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    11/12/2015 9:57:59 AM
    SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
    KEITH E. HOTTLE
    Clerk
    BARTON WADE and MARY WADE,
    APPELLANTS,
    v.
    SABR MORTGAGE LOAN 2008-1 REO SUBSIDIARY-LLC,
    APPELLEE.
    Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 10
    Bexar County, Texas
    Trial Court Case No. 2015CV03726
    Hon. David J. Rodriguez, presiding
    APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
    EXTENSION TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL
    TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
    Appellee SABR Mortgage Loan 2008-1 REO Subsidiary-1 LLC files this its
    Response to Appellant Barton Wade’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice
    of Appeal and respectfully shows as follows:
    APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
    EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL--PAGE 1
    I.
    Appellant Barton Wade (“Appellant”)1 filed his Notice of Appeal late. As
    reflected in the Docketing Statement that Appellant filed, the Trial Court’s
    Judgment was signed on September 17, 2015. See Docketing Statement. Pursuant
    to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was due
    on October 19, 2015. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a); see also TEX. R. APP. 4.1(a)
    (extending deadline to next business day when deadline falls on a weekend).
    Appellant, however, did not file his Notice of Appeal until November 2, 2015,
    which was fourteen days after it was due. See Appellant’s Notice of Appeal. On
    the same day that Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal, he also filed a Motion for
    Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. See Motion for Extension of Time to
    File Notice of Appeal. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3, an
    appellant may file a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal up to
    fifteen days after the date that the appellant’s notice of appeal was due. TEX. R.
    APP. P. 26.3.
    But even if a notice of appeal is filed within this fifteen-day grace period, 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); Hone v. Hanafin, 104
    1
    Even though Mary Wade is identified as an Appellant in the style of Appellant Barton Wade’s
    Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal in this matter, Mary Wade filed neither a
    notice of appeal nor any other documents in connection with this appeal. Therefore, Mary Wade
    is not a party to this appeal.
    APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
    EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL--PAGE 
    2 S.W.3d 884
    , 885 n.1 (Tex. 2003). An explanation is reasonable if the failure to
    timely file the notice of appeal was “not deliberate or intentional, but was the result
    of inadvertence, mistake or mischance.”              
    Id. at 886
    (quoting Meshwert v.
    Meshwert, 
    549 S.W.2d 383
    , 383-84 (Tex. 1977)); see also Dimotsis v. State Farm
    Lloyds, 
    966 S.W.2d 657
    (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, order).
    Explanations that show an appellant’s conscious or strategic decision to wait
    to file a notice of appeal do not show inadvertence, mistake, or mischance. See,
    e.g., Polk v. Dallas County, No. 05-13-01731-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3760,
    
    2014 WL 1413737
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 31, 2014, no pet.) (appellant
    was aware of deadline for filing his notice of appeal, but consciously ignored the
    deadline while making a determination about whether the decision to appeal made
    economic sense); Hykonnen v. Baker Hughes Bus. Support Servs., 
    93 S.W.3d 562
    ,
    563-64 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.], 2002, no pet.) (appellant failed to file
    notice of appeal until he found attorney to represent him on appeal at little or no
    cost); Weik v. Second Baptist Church of Houston, 
    988 S.W.2d 437
    , 439 (Tex.
    App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (appellant did not file notice of
    appeal because lawyer told him that if he appealed case while trial court still had
    authority to reinstate, appellant would have a difficult time prosecuting claim
    because of trial court's displeasure).
    APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
    EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL--PAGE 3
    Appellant’s explanation for the late-filing of his Notice of Appeal falls into
    this same category. In his Motion for Extension of Time, he acknowledges that he
    knew of the deadline, but goes on to say that he waited to file his Notice of Appeal
    because he was not sure if he would have enough time to spend on the appeal. See
    Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. He states that his mother’s
    health is poor and that his health has been poor, and for those reasons, he waited to
    file until he felt that he could spend enough time on the appeal. 
    Id. Appellant’s explanation
    does not meet the standard required for an extension
    of time under Rule 26.3. Appellant does not state that his or his mother’s health
    distracted him or otherwise caused him to miss the filing deadline somehow.
    Rather, he states that he “was not certain” that he would be able to devote
    sufficient time to the appeal. See Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of
    Appeal. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals considered a similar argument, where
    the indigent appellant waited to file a notice of appeal because he had difficulty
    finding an attorney who would handle his appeal pro bono. 
    Hykonnen, 93 S.W.3d at 563-64
    . The Fourteenth Court found those explanations to be untenable because
    the appellant’s decision not to file his notice of appeal on time was nevertheless
    deliberate.
    Here, like in Hykonnen, Appellant made a conscious decision not to file his
    Notice of Appeal when it was due. By definition, a conscious decision is not
    APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
    EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL--PAGE 4
    “inadvertence, mistake, or mischance”. See id; see also Polk, 2014 Tex. App.
    LEXIS 3760, 
    2014 WL 1413737
    , at *1; Green v. Cypress Fairbanks Med. Ctr.
    Hosp., No. 04-01-00434-CV, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 8559, 
    2001 WL 1665106
    , at
    *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 31, 2001, no pet.). To the contrary, Appellant’s
    decision not to file his Notice of Appeal by the deadline was “deliberate” and,
    therefore, his request for an extension of time to file his Notice of Appeal is
    unfounded. See 
    Hone, 104 S.W.3d at 886
    .
    WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellee respectfully requests
    the Court deny Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal,
    dismiss this Appeal for want of jurisdiction, and grant Appellee with all other and
    further relief to which it may be entitled.
    Respectfully submitted,
    By:    /s/ Mark D. Cronenwett
    MARK D. CRONENWETT
    Texas Bar No. 00787303
    mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com
    MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, PC
    14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 900
    Dallas, Texas 75254
    (214) 635-2650
    (214) 635-2686 (Fax)
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
    EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL--PAGE 5
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that on the 12th day of November, 2015, a true and correct
    copy of the foregoing was served via regular U.S. mail and E-Serve to the
    Appellants of record listed below:
    Barton Wade
    Mary Wade
    7530 Buckboard
    San Antonio, Texas 78227
    Bart.Wade@outlook.com
    /s/ Mark D. Cronenwett___________
    MARK D. CRONENWETT
    APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
    EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL--PAGE 6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-15-00683-CV

Filed Date: 11/12/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2016