NUMBER 13-12-00636-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________
STRATEGIC FUTURE INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.
AND JUANITA INEZ CANO, Appellants,
v.
GARSTIVA INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 93rd District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellants, Strategic Future Investments, L.L.C. and Juanita Inez Cano,
attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 93rd District Court of
Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-3793-10-B-1. Judgment in this cause was
signed on June 14, 2012. No motion for new trial was filed.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides that an appeal is perfected when
notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, unless a motion for
new trial is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial
has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the judgment is
signed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a).
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 rule 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, 619 (1997) (construing the
predecessor to Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for
the late filing: it is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins,
140 S.W.3d 462, 462 (Tex. App.BAmarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567
(Tex. App.BWaco 2002, no pet.).
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellants’ notice of appeal
was due on July 16, 20121, but was not filed until October 17, 2012. On October 22,
2012, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants of this defect so that steps could be taken
to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were advised that, if the defect was
not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal
would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellants.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellants’ failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants’ failure to respond to this
Court’s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of
1
Because the thirtieth day fell on a Saturday, appellants had until the following Monday, July 16, 2012 to file
the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1.
2
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the 13th
day of December, 2012.
3