Opinion
No. 05-19-00932-CV
01-09-2020
SANDRA HALE, Appellant v. RISING S COMPANY LLC, GARY LYNCH, AND CLYDE WAYNE SCOTT, Appellees
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 100179-CC
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Molberg
Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
Appellant appeals from the trial court's August 6, 2019 order denying her motion to dismiss pursuant to section 27.003 of the civil practice and remedies code (TCPA motion). See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.003. Because it appeared appellant's notice of appeal was untimely, the Court requested the parties to file letter briefs addressing the jurisdictional issue.
Section 27.005 provides a trial court must rule on a TCPA motion not later than the thirtieth day following the date of the hearing on the motion. See id. § 27.005(a). If the trial court does not rule on a TCPA motion in the time prescribed by section 27.005, the motion is considered to have been denied by operation of law and the moving party may appeal. See id. § 27.008(a). The date of the hearing triggers the date when a TCPA motion will be considered to have been denied by operation of law. Any order on the motion signed after that date is void. See Dallas Morning News v. Mapp, No. 05-14-00848-CV, 2015 WL 3932868, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 26, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (trial court's written order granting TCPA motion signed forty-one days after the hearing and after the motion was denied by operation of law was void).
An appeal from the denial of a TCPA motion is accelerated and must be filed within twenty days or, with an extension motion within thirty-five days, of the date the order is signed or the date the motion is overruled by operation of law. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 27.005(a), 27.008(a), 51.014(a)(12); TEX. RS. APP. P. 26.1(b), 26.3. Without a timely notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b).
The trial court heard the TCPA motion at a scheduling conference on April 23, 2019. When no order had been signed on or before May 23rd, the TCPA motion was denied by operation of law and the notice of appeal was due June 12th, or with an extension motion, June 27th. Appellant filed her notice of appeal on August 7th stating that she was appealing from the trial court's August 6th order denying her motion. The August 6th order, however, was void because it was not signed within thirty days of the hearing on the TCPA motion. See Mapp, 2015 WL 3932868, at *3.
Because it was unclear whether the trial court had conducted a hearing on the TCPA motion, we requested the trial court make findings on whether it conducted a hearing and, if so, the date of the hearing.
Although appellant filed a letter brief as requested, she fails to demonstrate that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Because her notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
/Robert D. Burns, III/
ROBERT D. BURNS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE 190932F.P05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the County Court At Law No. 1, Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 100179-CC.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Whitehill and Molberg participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellees RISING S COMPANY LLC, GARY LYNCH, AND CLYDE WAYNE SCOTT recover their costs of this appeal from appellant SANDRA HALE. Judgment entered January 9, 2020