IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00228-CV
ULLJA KUNTZE,
Appellant
v.
SANDRA COWAN,
Appellee
From the 335th District Court
Burleson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 26,129
________________
And
No. 10-17-00244-CV
EX PARTE ULLJA KUNTZE
Original Proceeding
ORDER AND NOTICE TO FILE RECORD
On November 1, 2017 Kuntze filed a document entitled “Appellant Ullja Kuntze’s
Request to Reconsider Oct 18, 2017 Order & Appellant’s Explanation as to why she
unknowingly filed her Notice of Appeal 3 days late.” The 28 page document takes the
Court to task for what Kuntze characterizes as the use of imaginary documents and lies,
and the lunacy of the Court’s order. The document is divided into two primary
sections. One section addresses the only thing we asked Kuntze to address in our October
18, 2017 order, which was to provide a reasonable explanation why her notice of appeal
was filed late. The other section sets out 12 issues in which Kuntze repetitively argues
what is essentially two mistakes in the Court’s October 18, 2017 order.
Because the two mistakes consume the bulk of Kuntze’s filing, the Court has
decided to address the complaints by issuing this order that acknowledges the mistakes
in the recitation of facts in the October 18, 2017 order and will comment upon the Court’s
action to correct them. First, the Court stated, both in the caption of the case and within
the body of the order that the proceeding arose out of a case from the 21st District Court
of Burleson County. While that is the information that was provided to the Court by the
District Clerk on the cover sheet provided with the notice of appeal, we note that Kuntze
is correct that the trial court’s docket sheet and the final judgment both indicate that the
actual trial court is the 335th District Court of Burleson County. We have already made
this correction in our case management system, TAMES (Texas Appeals Management
and e-Filing System).
The second mistake was a miscommunication between the justices who rendered
the order and the Court Clerk regarding the proceeding in which the motion-challenging-
the-trial-court’s-determination-that-Kuntze-was-not-indigent was to be filed. The Court
thought the motion was filed in both the appeal and the original proceeding but it was
Kuntze v. Cowan Page 2
Ex parte Kuntze
mistakenly filed in only the appeal. This miscommunication between the Court and the
Clerk will be corrected by causing the motion to also be filed in the original proceeding
where it belongs, rather than it being filed only in the appeal. Because the same
document also contains a motion which seeks a stay of the appeal pending a disposition
of the indigency issue, the motion as it relates to the motion to stay, must also remain
filed in the appeal. The filing date for the motion in the original proceeding will reflect
the date it was actually filed and not the date that it was added to the original
proceeding. Thus, the date of filing will not change and it will be filed in both
proceedings, one as a motion to stay the appeal, and the other as a motion for review of
the trial court’s determination that Kuntze is not indigent.
As to the response we requested from Kuntze seeking a reasonable explanation for
the late filing of the notice of appeal as required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in Verburgt, which is the only response we
needed from Kuntze, she explained that she misunderstood the rules and thought the
time to file her notice of appeal ran from the date the trial court denied her motion for
new-trial rather than the date the final judgment was signed. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959
S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997). This is an adequate explanation under Verburgt. Id. Accordingly,
the Court grants an implied motion for extension of time to file Kuntze’s notice of appeal.
See id. at 617. (A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant
acting in good faith files a notice of appeal within the fifteen-day period in which the
appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing deadline).
Kuntze v. Cowan Page 3
Ex parte Kuntze
To the extent not expressly granted herein, all relief requested, if any, and
objections made, if any, in the November 1, 2017 motion is denied and overruled,
respectively.
In a separate motion filed on July 28, 2017, Kuntze moved to stay this appeal until
the trial court had ruled on her motion (now filed as an original proceeding, Ex parte
Kuntze, 10-17-00244-CV) which seeks a review of the trial court’s determination that
Kuntze could pay cost. Kuntze’s motion for stay of this appeal is granted until further
order of the Court.
Kuntze also filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s October 18, 2017 order as it
relates to Ex parte Kuntze, 10-17-00244-CV. The Court’s previous order stayed that
proceeding. Nevertheless, the Court has corrected Kuntze’s primary complaint in that
motion by filing the July 28, 2017 motion in the original proceeding. To the extent Kuntze
requests additional relief in the motion to reconsider filed on November 1, 2017, it is
denied.
The stay in Ex parte Kuntze, 10-17-00244-CV, is lifted, and the proceeding is
reinstated. Accordingly, this is the notice pursuant to Rule 145(g)(3) of the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure to the trial court clerk and the trial court reporter requesting
preparation of the record of all trial court proceedings on the declarant’s claim of
indigence. The Court requests these limited records within 21 days from the date of this
order. The requested records must be provided without charge. See TEX. R. CIV. P.
145(g)(3).
PER CURIAM
Kuntze v. Cowan Page 4
Ex parte Kuntze
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Motions denied
Appeal stayed
Stay of original proceeding lifted
Order issued and filed January 3, 2018
Publish
Kuntze v. Cowan Page 5
Ex parte Kuntze