Grant Rawston Headifen v. Vanessa Harker Appeal from 261st District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00552-CV Grant Rawston Headifen, Appellant v. Vanessa Harker, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 261ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-FM-13-001842, HONORABLE ORLINDA NARANJO, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 28, 2015, appellant Grant Rawston Headifen filed a notice of appeal. Appellee Vanessa Harker filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Headifen appeals from a final judgment signed by the trial court on May 7, 2015. Headifen timely filed a motion for new trial on June 8, 2015. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 4, 306a, 329b(a). Headifen’s motion for new trial extended his deadline for filing a notice of appeal until 90 days after the judgment was signed, making the deadline August 5, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). That deadline might have been extended until August 20, 2015, if Headifen had filed either a notice of appeal with the trial court or a motion for extension of time with this Court within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 (Tex. 1997) (“[O]nce the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule 41(a)(2) [now Rule 26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.”). Headifen’s August 28, 2015 notice of appeal is untimely, and we therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b) (providing that filing notice of appeal invokes appellate court’s jurisdiction), id. R. 2 (establishing that appellate court may not alter time for perfecting appeal in civil case). Upon review of the trial-court clerk’s record, the Clerk of this Court sent Headifen a letter informing him that the Court appears to lack jurisdiction over the appeal for the reasons stated above and requesting a response informing us of any basis that exists for jurisdiction. In response, Headifen asserted that he set his motion for new trial for hearing on the earliest date that the trial court allowed and that he would have immediately filed his appeal if his motion for new trial had been denied sooner. The date that the motion for new trial is heard or decided has no bearing on the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. Once the motion is filed, the only date that matters for the purpose of the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is the date that the judgment was signed. See id. R. 26.1(a)(1). Accordingly, we grant Harker’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a). __________________________________________ Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: November 17, 2015 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.
