Juanita Villarreal v. Evelyn Wilson and Carl Wilson

Villarreal v. Wilson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN





ON MOTION FOR REHEARING







NO. 3-93-665-CV





JUANITA VILLARREAL,

APPELLANT



vs.





EVELYN WILSON AND CARL WILSON,

APPELLEES







FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 92-203-C277, HONORABLE JOHN R. CARTER, JUDGE PRESIDING







PER CURIAM





In her motion for rehearing, Villarreal renews an argument made in her "Motion To Accept Late Filing As Timely" that we failed to address in our original opinion. Villarreal argues that this Court should rule that her request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, filed in the trial court thirty days after the judgment was signed, was timely filed. She further argues that inadvertence in filing her request late should justify our accepting the request as timely. A timely request for findings and conclusions would have extended the deadline to file her transcript from sixty to one hundred twenty days after the judgment was signed. Tex. R. App. P. 54(a).

Rule 54(a) grants one hundred twenty days after judgment is signed to file the transcript "if any party has timely filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law." Nothing in the rule allows a late request for findings and conclusions to similarly extend the filing deadline from ninety to one hundred twenty days. Villarreal's request that we deem her late request for findings timely would amount to the same act as allowing a late request for findings to extend the appellate timetable. We decline to expand the authority expressly granted by Rule 54(a) by allowing a late request for findings to serve the same purpose in determining the appellate timetables as a timely request.

We therefore overrule Villarreal's motion for rehearing.



Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Kidd and B. A. Smith

Motion for Rehearing Overruled

Filed: March 30, 1994

Do Not Publish