Yassy Hernandez Terreforte v. Irwing Onix Gonzalez ( 2022 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-22-00349-CV
___________________________
YASSY HERNANDEZ TERREFORTE, Appellant
V.
IRWING ONIX GONZALEZ, Appellee
On Appeal from the 233rd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 233-708038-21
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Yassy Hernandez Terreforte attempts to appeal from the trial court’s August 2,
2022 “Agreed Final Decree of Divorce.” Because Terreforte did not file a
postjudgment motion extending the appellate deadline, her notice of appeal was due
September 1, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. But Terreforte did not file her notice of
appeal until September 2, 2022, making it untimely. See id.
On September 6, 2022, we wrote to notify the parties of our concern that we
lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely filed. See
id. We warned that we could dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless
Terreforte or any party wanting to continue the appeal filed a response by September
16, 2022, showing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.
See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b), 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We have received no response.
The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and without
a timely filed notice of appeal or a timely filed extension request, we must dismiss the
appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.1, 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d
676, 677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). A motion
for extension of time is necessarily implied when, as here, an appellant acting in good
faith files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the 15-
day period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing
deadline under Rule 26.3. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; see
also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3. But even when an extension motion is implied, the
2
appellant still must reasonably explain the need for an extension. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d
at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617.
Because Terreforte’s notice of appeal was untimely and because Terreforte did
not provide a reasonable explanation for needing an extension, we dismiss this appeal
for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Veritek LLC v. TBI Constr.
Servs. LLC, No. 02-20-00287-CV, 2021 WL 62129, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan.
7, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.).
/s/ Elizabeth Kerr
Elizabeth Kerr
Justice
Delivered: October 27, 2022
3