Taylorwood Management, Inc. v. Michelle Haag--Appeal from 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

State: Texas

Docket No: 04-05-00806-CV

Case Date: 12/21/2005

Plaintiff: LEYDIANA ZUNIGA

Defendant: THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 404th District Court of Cameron County

Preview:Taylorwood Management, Inc. v. Michelle Haag--
Appeal from 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar
County
/**/
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-05-00806-CV
TAYLORWOOD MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Appellant
v.
Michelle HAAG and Thomas P. Haag,
Appellees
From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2004-CI-12738
Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice
Catherine Stone, Justice
Sarah B. Duncan, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 21 , 2005
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/18828.html[8/20/2013 7:47:35 PM]

The trial court signed a final judgment on July 6, 2005. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial on July 22, 2005.
Therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on October 4, 2005. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). A motion for
extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on October 19, 2005. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Appellant filed
its notice of appeal on October 26, 2005. Appellant did not file a motion for extension of time, and its notice of appeal
was not filed within the fifteen day grace period for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959
S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (implying motion for extension of time when notice of appeal filed within grace period).
In its notice of appeal, appellant asserts that its appeal is a restricted appeal because appellant did not participate either
in person or through counsel in the hearing that resulted in the aforementioned default judgment; defendant did not
timely file a notice of appeal or a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rule 30 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure permits a party to file a restricted appeal if certain conditions are met, including that the party did
not timely file a postjudgment motion. Tex. R. App. P. 30. In this case, appellant timely filed a motion for new trial
which the trial court heard and denied by written order.
On November 17, 2005, appellant was ordered to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond to our order. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Costs of
the appeal are taxed against appellant.
PER CURIAM
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/18828.html[8/20/2013 7:47:35 PM]

Download 18828.pdf