Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 27, 2006.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-06-00083-CV
____________
WILLIAM T. OVERKA and HOANG THI MINH TRUONG, Appellants
V.
CARMELITA BOQUIS BAURI, Appellee
On Appeal from the 309th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 03-28548
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 8, 2005. Appellants filed an untimely motion for new trial on October 17, 2005. Appellants= notice of appeal was filed on January 18, 2006. The notice of appeal does not state the date the final judgment was signed.
The notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed when appellant has not filed a timely motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusion of law. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1
Appellants= notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rrule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 9 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617-18. Appellants= notice of appeal was not filed within the fifteen-day period provided by Rrule 26.3
On May 25, 2005, notification was transmitted to all parties of the cCourt=s intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellants filed a response, claiming that the March 8, 2005, order was not final and appealable because appellee had filed an appeal of an order signed by the associate judge in February 2005.
The record reveals that, before the trial court entered the March 8, 2005, order regarding child support, the associate judge had granted appellants= no-evidence motion for summary judgment on appellee=s claim of civil conspiracy. This order granting summary judgment was signed by the associate judge on February 16, 2005. Appellee filed an appeal of the associate judge=s ruling on February 21, 2005. Although appellee was entitled to judicial review of the associate judge=s ruling, Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 201.015 (Vernon 2002), she did not complain about the failure to rule on the appeal before the March 8, 2005, final order was signed. Thus, we find that the March 8, 2005, order denied the appeal of the associate judge=s previous ruling, rendering the March 9, 2005, order final and appealable. We do not find that aAppellee=s failure to pursue her appeal did not rendered the March 8, 2005, order interlocutory.
Appellants also claim that they intend to appeal an order signed April 25, 2005, and the December 2, 2005, order denying their motion for new trial. The record does not contain an order signed April 25, 2005. Appellants claim that the April 25th order denied attorney=s fees to appellant Hoang. This is not a separately appealable order. To appeal from this order, appellants must appeal from the March 8, 2005, final order. Furthermore, the order of December 2, 2005, denying appellants= motion for new trial is not a final, appealable order.[1] Because no notice of appeal was filed within the deadline after the signing of the March 8, 2005, order, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed July 27, 2006.
Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Edelman, and Frost.
[1] Appellants claim that the March 8, 2005, order did not dispose of all issues and parties because appellee=s appeal was pending and the order did not become final and appealable until it merged with the trial court=s denial of appellants= motion for new trial. This argument has no merit. Even if the March 8, 2005, order had not been a final order, the deadline for perfecting the appeal would not run from the date the motion for new trial was denied; the deadline would run from the date the trial court entered an order disposing of any remaining issues or parties. The order denying the motion for new trial did not adjudicate any issues or parties.