Yassy Hernandez Terreforte v. Irwing Onix Gonzalez Appeal from 233rd District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-22-00349-CV ___________________________ YASSY HERNANDEZ TERREFORTE, Appellant V. IRWING ONIX GONZALEZ, Appellee On Appeal from the 233rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 233-708038-21 Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr MEMORANDUM OPINION Yassy Hernandez Terreforte attempts to appeal from the trial court’s August 2, 2022 “Agreed Final Decree of Divorce.” Because Terreforte did not file a postjudgment motion extending the appellate deadline, her notice of appeal was due September 1, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. But Terreforte did not file her notice of appeal until September 2, 2022, making it untimely. See id. On September 6, 2022, we wrote to notify the parties of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely filed. See id. We warned that we could dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless Terreforte or any party wanting to continue the appeal filed a response by September 16, 2022, showing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b), 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We have received no response. The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and without a timely filed notice of appeal or a timely filed extension request, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.1, 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when, as here, an appellant acting in good faith files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the 15day period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing deadline under Rule 26.3. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; see also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3. But even when an extension motion is implied, the 2 appellant still must reasonably explain the need for an extension. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617. Because Terreforte’s notice of appeal was untimely and because Terreforte did not provide a reasonable explanation for needing an extension, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Veritek LLC v. TBI Constr. Servs. LLC, No. 02-20-00287-CV, 2021 WL 62129, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 7, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). /s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice Delivered: October 27, 2022 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.
