Alyssa Serrano and Bill Serrano v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Appeal from 152nd District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Appellee’s Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 14, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-21-00429-CV ALYSSA SERRANO AND BILL SERRANO, Appellants V. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the 152nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-36592 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal from a summary judgment signed April 19, 2021. Because appellants’ notice of appeal is untimely, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellants filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on April 5, 2021; a motion for new trial on May 20, 2021; and a notice of appeal on July 29, 2021. Prematurely filed requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law are deemed to have been filed on the date of but subsequent to the time of signing of the judgment. Tex. R. Civ. P. 306c. Appropriate, even premature, requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law may expand the appellate timetable to 90 days. See Tex. R. App. 26.1(a)(4); Cobb v. Cobb, No. 03-14-00325-CV, 2016 WL 3136886 at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin June 3, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.). However, Rule 26.1(a)(4) only allows for an expanded timetable if the findings may be properly considered by the appellate court. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(4). The underlying proceeding was decided by summary judgment. Because findings of fact and conclusions of law have been held to “have no place in a summary judgment proceeding,” the effect of appellants’ request did not trigger the expanded 90-day appellate timetable under 26.1(a)(4). See Linwood v. NCNB Texas, 885 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex. 1994).1 Appellants could have also expanded the appellate timetable by timely filing a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). A motion for new trial must be filed within thirty days of the judgment. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a). Appellants filed their motion for new trial 31 days after the trial court signed its judgment. Accordingly, the appellate timetable was not expanded. Appellants’ notice of appeal was due 30 days after the judgment was signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellants filed their notice of appeal 101 days after the trial court signed its judgment. We lack jurisdiction to consider appellants’ appeal. Appellee’s motion is granted, and the appeal is ordered dismissed. See Tex. R. App. 42.3(a). 1 Appellants’ notice of appeal would have still been late, even under the expanded timetable, but it would have fallen within the 15-day grace period under Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 (1997). 2 PER CURIAM Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson. 3

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.