Taylorwood Management, Inc. v. Michelle Haag--Appeal from 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-05-00806-CV

TAYLORWOOD MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Appellant

v.

Michelle HAAG and Thomas P. Haag,

Appellees

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2004-CI-12738

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 21 , 2005

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court signed a final judgment on July 6, 2005. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial on July 22, 2005. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on October 4, 2005. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on October 19, 2005. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Appellant filed its notice of appeal on October 26, 2005. Appellant did not file a motion for extension of time, and its notice of appeal was not filed within the fifteen day grace period for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (implying motion for extension of time when notice of appeal filed within grace period).

In its notice of appeal, appellant asserts that its appeal is a restricted appeal because appellant did not participate either in person or through counsel in the hearing that resulted in the aforementioned default judgment; defendant did not timely file a notice of appeal or a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rule 30 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure permits a party to file a restricted appeal if certain conditions are met, including that the party did not timely file a postjudgment motion. Tex. R. App. P. 30. In this case, appellant timely filed a motion for new trial which the trial court heard and denied by written order.

On November 17, 2005, appellant was ordered to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond to our order. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.

PER CURIAM