Katie Reames v. Chelsea Barnes-Brashear

NO. 12-24-00109-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KATIE REAMES, § APPEAL FROM THE 249TH
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

CHELSEA BARNES-BRASHEAR,
APPELLEE § JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

On March 28, 2024, Katie Reames filed a notice of appeal from a judgment signed on
December 28, 2023. 1 Under Rule 26.1, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after
the judgment is signed or, if the case is accelerated, within twenty days after the judgment or
order is signed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Unless the appeal is accelerated, the notice of appeal must
be filed within ninety days “after the judgment is signed” if any party timely files a motion for
new trial, motion to modify, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusions
of law when such could be properly considered by the appellate court. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)-
(b), 28.1(b). Reames’s docketing statement reflects that she filed a motion for new trial on
January 26, 2024, making her notice of appeal due on or before March 27.
Rule 26.3 provides that a motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal must be
filed within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3.
Any motion for extension of time was due no later than April 11. Reames did not file a motion
for extension.

1 This case was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco, Texas, pursuant to
a docket equalization order. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013).
On April 26, this Court notified Reames that the information received in this appeal does
not show the jurisdiction of this Court, i.e., there is no timely notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 26.1, 37.1. Nevertheless, Reames was further notified that, pursuant to Rule
26.3 and Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997), we would imply a motion to extend
time for filing the notice of appeal. We informed Reames that Rule 26.3 requires a motion
complying with Rule 10.5(b). See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b). Thus, we notified Reames
that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless on or before May 6, she
informed this Court, in writing, of facts that reasonably explained the need for an extension of
time to file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. This deadline expired without a
motion in accordance with Verburgt or other response from Reames.
This Court is not authorized to alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Because Reames did not respond to this Court’s Verburgt notice, we cannot
exercise jurisdiction over the appeal. See Zakirali v. Sysco Corp., No. 10-23-00242-CV, 2023
WL 7871794, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 16, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal
for want of jurisdiction when motion for extension was implied under Verburgt but appellant
failed to provide reasonable explanation for late notice of appeal despite appellate court’s
warning letter); see also Lasater v. Thompson, No. 02-20-00290-CV, 2021 WL 386957, at *1
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 4, 2021, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (absent timely filed notice of appeal
or extension request, appellate court lacks jurisdiction). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for
want of jurisdiction. 2

Opinion delivered May 15, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

2 We also note that Reames’s notice of appeal fails to comply with Section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil

Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of
appeal must be served on each court reporter responsible for preparing reporter’s record).

2
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 15, 2024

NO. 12-24-00109-CV

KATIE REAMES,
Appellant
V.
CHELSEA BARNES-BRASHEAR,
Appellee

Appeal from the 249th District Court
of Johnson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. DC-C202200203)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same
being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision
be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J