Gail Adarker v. JP Morgan Chase Bank--Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 2 of Harris County

Annotate this Case
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 2, 2003

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 2, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00982-CV

____________

GAIL ADARKER, Appellant

V.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No.  Two

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 785,062

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from a default judgment signed April 29, 2003. Appellant filed an untimely motion for new trial on June 2, 2003. Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed until August 15, 2003.

The notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed when appellant has not filed a timely motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusion of law. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.


Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). The appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner, however. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617-18. Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed within the fifteen-day period provided by rule 26.3.

On September 8, 2003, notification was transmitted to all parties of the Court=s intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed no response.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed October 2, 2003.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Anderson and Seymore.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.