In the Estate of Roland R. Esparza, Deceased Appeal from Probate Court No. 2 of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-21-00191-CV IN THE ESTATE OF Roland R. ESPARZA, Deceased From the Probate Court No. 2, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021-PC-0326 Honorable Veronica Vasquez, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 7, 2021 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION On March 29, 2021, the probate court signed an order appointing a temporary administrator. Assuming without deciding that the order was appealable, a notice of appeal was due on April 28, 2021, and a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was due on May 13, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3. On May 13, 2021, after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, Appellant filed a notice of appeal without filing a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. See generally Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (“[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 period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing deadline under Rule [26.3].” (emphasis added)). 04-21-00191-CV On June 7, 2021, we ordered Appellant to show cause in writing by June 17, 2021, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b) (requirements for a motion for extension of time); Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc., 774 S.W.2d 668, 670 (Tex. 1989) (reasonable explanation); TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a) (dismissal for want of jurisdiction). We warned Appellant that if he failed to respond within the time provided, this appeal would be dismissed. See id. R. 42.3(c) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). To date, Appellant has not filed any response to our June 7, 2021 order. Appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for failing to timely file a notice of appeal; Appellant has not complied with Rule 26.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3(b); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617. Thus, Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, and he has failed to invoke this court’s appellate jurisdiction. See Schmidt Land Servs., Inc. v. Ashworth, No. 04-16-00203CV, 2016 WL 3031049, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 25, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.); Hernandez v. Rimkus Consulting Grp., Inc., No. 01-11-00100-CV, 2011 WL 1900062, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 5, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.). We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). PER CURIAM -2-
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.
