Rosa E. Santis and Rosa Santis v. Travis Central Appraisal District

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00109-CV
Rosa E. Santis and Rosa Santis, Appellants
v.
Travis Central Appraisal District, Appellee
FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-GN-17-004778, THE HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants filed their notice of appeal on February 21, 2019, purporting to appeal
from the trial court’s “denial by operation of law of Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial.” The
denial of a motion for new trial, however, is not independently appealable. Fletcher v. Ahrabi,
No. 01-12-00794-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 10163, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
Dec. 6, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.). In this case, the final judgment was signed on
November 13, 2018. Because appellants timely filed their motion for new trial, the notice of
appeal from the final judgment was due to be filed on or before February 11, 2019. See Tex. R.
App. P. 26.1(a)(1) (requiring notice of appeal to be filed within 90 days after judgment is signed
if party timely files motion for new trial).
On June 17, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that their notice of
appeal was not timely filed but that it was filed within the fifteen-day period in which Rule
26.3(a) permits parties to file a motion for extension of time to file their notice of appeal. See R.
26.3(a). The Clerk further explained that this Court may imply a motion for extension of time in
this circumstance but that appellants were required to reasonably explain the need for an
extension. In re K.M.Z., 178 S.W.3d 432, 433 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (citing
Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997)) (“Following an implied motion for
extension of time, it is an appellant’s burden to establish a reasonable explanation . . . for the
needed extension.”). The Clerk requested that appellants file a response on or before
June 28, 2019, that explained why an extension of time was needed to file the notice of appeal
and notified appellants that the failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal. To
date, appellants have not filed a response. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), (c).
__________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: July 9, 2019
2