Marjorie Washington v. Light House for the Homeless A/K/A Presbyterian Night Shelter ( 2023 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-23-00415-CV
___________________________
MARJORIE WASHINGTON, Appellant
V.
LIGHT HOUSE FOR THE HOMELESS A/K/A PRESBYTERIAN NIGHT
SHELTER, Appellee
On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2022-005171-1
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 13, 2023, the trial court signed a final judgment against
Appellant Marjorie Washington. Because Washington did not file a postjudgment
motion extending the appellate deadline, her notice of appeal was due October 13,
2023. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. But Washington did not file her notice of appeal until
October 27, 2023, making it untimely. See id.
On November 2, 2023, we notified the parties by letter 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
Washington or any party wanting to continue the appeal filed a response by
November 13, 2023, 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
2
also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3. But even when an extension motion is implied, the
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 Washington’s notice of appeal was untimely filed and because
Washington 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); see
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: December 21, 2023
3