Michael Bernard Bailey v. Judith Chiawotu Bailey Appeal from 353rd District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-18-00643-CV Michael Bernard Bailey, Appellant v. Judith Chiawotu Bailey, Appellee FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-17-004996, THE HONORABLE KARIN CRUMP, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION On September 28, 2018, appellant Michael Bernard Bailey filed a notice of appeal from a final judgment signed by the trial court on May 29, 2018. Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial on June 28, 2018. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b. Appellant’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 27, 2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). That deadline might have been extended until September 11, 2018, if appellant 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, 61718 (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.”). Appellant’s September 28, 2018 notice of appeal is thus untimely, and we 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). After appellee filed a motion to dismiss asserting the notice of appeal was untimely and upon review of the trial-court clerk’s record, the Clerk of this Court sent appellant 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. The notice further advised appellant that his failure to comply with this request could result in the dismissal of the appeal. To date, no response has been filed. Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a). __________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: November 28, 2018 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.
