International BC Group LLC, Minerva Carrizales Hernandez, and Jorge Alberto Briones Rodriguez v. Lone Star National Bank ( 2017 )

NUMBER 13-17-00466-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________
INTERNATIONAL BC GROUP
LLC, MINERVA CARRIZALES
HERNANDEZ, AND JORGE
ALBERTO BRIONES RODRIGUEZ, Appellants,
v.
LONE STAR NATIONAL BANK, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 206th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Longoria and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
Appellants, International BC Group LLC, Minerva Carrizales Hernandez, and
Jorge Alberto Briones Rodriguez, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered
by the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-3623-16-D.
Judgment in this cause was signed on July 18, 2017. No motion for new trial was filed.
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellants’ notice of appeal was
due on August 17, 2017, but was not filed until August 18, 2017.
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.).
On August 21, 2017, 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 providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice
of appeal.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellants’ failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellants’ failure to respond to this
Court’s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of
2
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Delivered and filed the
26th day of October, 2017.
3