Julian Paz Dominguez v. Carmen Trevino Dominguez--Appeal from 225th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-04-00126-CV

Julian Paz DOMINGUEZ,

Appellant

v.

Carmen Trevino DOMINGUEZ,

Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1988-CI-02589

Honorable Michael Peden, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2005

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on February 23, 2004. The trial court signed a final divorce decree in the underlying cause on January 14, 1988. The trial court also signed an order modifying the divorce decree on January 10, 1989, and a contempt and child support arrearage judgment on December 26, 1989. Appellant s notice of appeal appears to be directed at the final divorce decree; however, the notice of appeal was due on February 15, 1988. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Assuming the notice of appeal was directed at the latest order entered by the trial court on December 26, 1989, the notice of appeal was due on January 25, 1990. See id.

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 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). But once the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court s jurisdiction. Id.

On January 12, 2005, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant responded to our order. From the response, it appears that appellant did intend to appeal the original divorce decree and not an order more recently entered by the trial court. Because the period for granting a motion for extension of time had passed before appellant filed his notice of appeal, appellant has not invoked our jurisdiction. Id. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM