Clara Mae Bell, Carolyn Bell Thomas, Et Al v. Bill Neal--Appeal from 46th District Court of Hardeman County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-01-0235-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
SEPTEMBER 27, 2001
______________________________
CAROLYN BELL THOMAS, APPELLANT
V.
BILL NEAL, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 46TH DISTRICT COURT OF SHERMAN COUNTY;
NO. 9395; HONORABLE LESLIE THOMAS, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Appellant Carolyn Bell Thomas has filed, pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure
10.5(b), a motion for extension of time to file a response to appellee Bill Neal’s motion to
dismiss for want of jurisdiction. That motion to dismiss was filed on August 10, 2001,
based on appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal. In a civil case, an appeal may
be dismissed on any party’s motion if it is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Tex.
R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed no response, and on August 29, 2001, this court
granted appellee’s motion and dismissed the appeal because we had no jurisdiction to
consider it.
Six days later, on September 4, 2001, appellant filed her motion to extend the time
to file her response to the motion to dismiss. She asserts that the deadline for filing her
response was August 31, 2001, and that an extension until September 7, 2001, will not
prejudice appellee and “will allow the Court the opportunity to deal with both the procedural
and substantive issues raised by this appeal.”
Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) prescribes what must be contained in a motion
to extend time. However, it does not provide a time limit in which that motion must be filed.
Unless otherwise specifically prescribed by another rule, a party may file a response to a
motion at any time before the court rules on the motion or by any deadline set by the court,
and the court may determine a motion before a response is filed. Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(b).
Even so, a court should generally not hear or determine a motion until ten days after the
filing of the motion. Tex. R. App. P. 10.3(a).1 This court waited more than ten days before
ruling on appellee’s motion to dismiss, and appellant did not file her response until after
the court had already ruled on the motion. Thus, having dismissed the appeal for want of
1
Parenthetically, we note that we also had authority to dismiss this appeal for want
of jurisdiction on our own initiative after giving ten days’ notice to all parties. Tex. R. App.
P. 42.2(a).
2
jurisdiction, appellant’s motion for extension of time is not timely, and the motion is hereby
overruled.
John T. Boyd
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
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.
