HOA DAO AND KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT v. MARYLAND CASUALTY INS AND CRAIG RAUSS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont.

HOA DAO AND KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT, Appellants v. MARYLAND CASUALTY INS. AND CRAIG RAUSS, Appellees

NO. 09-16-00349-CV

Decided: October 20, 2016

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Hoa Dao and Keystone Management 1 filed a notice of appeal on September 19, 2016. The Court notified the parties that the notice of appeal did not appear to have been timely filed. In a response, Hoa Dao argued the notice of appeal was due either 120 days after the date the judgment was signed or 90 days after the date the motion for new trial was filed. She subsequently retained counsel and filed a motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal.

The judgment was signed on June 1, 2016, and the motion for new trial was filed on June 29, 2016; therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed by August 30, 2016. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). The period for granting an extension of time to file the notice of appeal expired on September 14, 2016. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. The notice of appeal is dated September 16, 2016, and was received and e-filed by the trial court clerk on September 19, 2016. Absent a timely-filed notice of appeal or timely request to extend the period during which a party seeking to appeal must file its notice of appeal, we are required to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Accordingly, we deny the motion for extension of time and we dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court's judgment disposes of the claims of Hoa Dao d/b/a Keystone Management and Huy Can Dao d/b/a Keystone Management. The notice of appeal was signed by Hoa Dao, acting pro se.

HOLLIS HORTON Justice