Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 14-25-01093-CV, January 27, 2026.
On appeal from Unknown
Synopsis
The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal when the notice of appeal is filed beyond the thirty-day deadline mandated by Rule 26.1 and outside the fifteen-day grace period permitted by Rule 26.3. Because the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite, a failure to meet these deadlines—absent a qualifying post-judgment motion—requires mandatory dismissal of the appeal.
Relevance to Family Law
In the context of Texas Family Law, where finality is essential for the stability of children and the distribution of marital estates, this case underscores the “hard stop” of appellate jurisdiction. Whether litigating a Decree of Divorce or an Order in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR), counsel must recognize that the appellate clock is unforgiving. Missing the forty-five-day window (the initial thirty days plus the fifteen-day Verburgt extension) constitutes a terminal procedural error that cannot be cured by equitable arguments or subsequent briefing.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The dispute originated from an order signed on August 21, 2025, in a guardianship proceeding in Harris County. Following the signing of the order, the appellant did not file any post-judgment motions—such as a motion for new trial or a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law—that would have extended the appellate timetable. Under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, this set the deadline for the notice of appeal at thirty days from the date of the order. The appellant eventually filed a notice of appeal on December 9, 2025, nearly four months after the judgment was signed. The Court of Appeals issued a notice of intent to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and the appellant’s subsequent response failed to provide a legal basis for the court to exercise jurisdiction over the untimely filing.
Issues Decided
The primary issue decided was whether the Fourteenth Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the notice of appeal was filed 110 days after the judgment was signed, clearly exceeding the thirty-day filing window and the subsequent fifteen-day extension period.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, which establishes the baseline thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal. It also applied Rule 26.3, which allows for a fifteen-day extension under specific circumstances. The court invoked the precedent set in Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997), which held that a motion for extension of time is “necessarily implied” if the notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen-day grace period. Finally, the court utilized Rule 42.3(a), providing for the involuntary dismissal of an appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Application
The court’s application of the law was a straightforward chronological analysis. Starting from the signing date of August 21, 2025, the court noted the absence of any post-judgment motions that would have triggered a ninety-day deadline. This placed the appellant squarely within the thirty-day requirement of Rule 26.1. Even applying the “implied motion” doctrine from Verburgt, which effectively gives appellants a total of forty-five days to file, the December 9 filing was months late. The court emphasized that when a party receives a jurisdictional notice under Rule 42.3(a), the burden rests on the appellant to demonstrate facts that establish the court’s power to hear the case. Because the appellant could not bridge the gap between the October expiration of the grace period and the December filing, the court was constitutionally and procedurally barred from considering the merits.
Holding
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed timely under Rule 26.1 and fell outside the extension period provided by Rule 26.3.
As a result of this jurisdictional defect, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, effectively leaving the trial court’s order undisturbed and unreviewable.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case is a reminder that the “15-day grace period” is not a suggestion; it is a jurisdictional cliff. If you are representing a party who intends to appeal a final property division or a custody determination, you must calendar the 30th day and the 45th day immediately upon the judge’s signature. If the 30-day window is missed, you must act within that 15-day Verburgt window to have any hope of survival. Furthermore, the case highlights the strategic value of filing a “safety” Motion for New Trial, which would have bought this appellant ninety days from the date of the judgment to perfect the appeal.
Checklists
Calendar Management
- Signature Date: Identify the exact date the judge signed the order, not the date of the hearing or the date the clerk uploaded it.
- 30-Day Marker: Calculate 30 days from the signature date as the primary deadline for the Notice of Appeal.
- 45-Day Marker: Calculate 45 days (30 + 15) as the absolute final “Verburgt” deadline.
- 90-Day Extension: File a Motion for New Trial or Request for Findings of Fact within 30 days to extend the appellate deadline to 90 days.
Avoiding Jurisdictional Dismissal
- Verify Post-Judgment Filings: Confirm that any motion filed actually extends the appellate timetable under TRAP 26.1(a).
- Monitor the 15-Day Window: If the 30-day deadline is missed, file the Notice of Appeal and a formal Motion to Extend Time immediately.
- Respond to Section 42.3 Notices: If the Clerk of the Court sends a notice of jurisdictional defect, provide a detailed timeline and cite specific TRAP provisions or tolling statutes (e.g., TRAP 4.3 for lack of notice).
Citation
Guardianship of Angie Cooper, No. 14-25-01093-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 27, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In Texas family law, this ruling can be weaponized by the prevailing party to terminate litigation and begin immediate enforcement of a decree. If an opposing party files their notice of appeal on day 46, they have no recourse. A savvy litigator will wait for the 45-day window to expire before moving to enforce complex property transfers or child possession changes, knowing that the trial court’s order is now insulated from appellate review. In high-conflict custody cases, this “45-day death sentence” prevents the losing parent from using the appellate process as a tool for delay, as the court of appeals is required to dismiss the case regardless of the perceived “fairness” of the underlying trial court order.
~~70168e7a-6114-42eb-8700-2307b2700d47~~
Share this content: