Opinion
No. 11-10-00358-CV
Opinion filed January 13, 2011.
On Appeal from the 118th District Court, Glasscock County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1523.
Panel consists of: WRIGHT, C.J., McCALL, J., and STRANGE, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The trial court signed the decree on August 2, 2010. Appellant, Misty Rhea Abney, timely filed a motion for new trial on August 9, 2010. TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a). In order to have timely perfected the appeal, appellant was required to file the notice of appeal on or before November 1, 2010. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1); see TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a). Appellant did not file her notice of appeal until November 24, 2010. Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely. We dismiss the appeal.
A clerk's record has not been filed in this court. However, the trial court clerk's office forwarded a docketing statement setting out the filing dates of the relevant documents along with copies of those documents attached. When the clerk's docketing statement was received in this court, the clerk of this court wrote the parties on December 2, 2010, informing them that it appeared that the notice of appeal was untimely. The clerk's letter requested appellant to provide a written response on or before December 17, 2010, containing a reasonable explanation for the failure to timely file the notice of appeal. The clerk's letter further advised appellant that the appeal may be dismissed absent a reasonable explanation for the untimely notice of appeal. There has been no response to our letter of December 2, 2010.
Additionally, the clerk directed appellant in a letter dated December 1, 2010, to forward the filing fee in this case as soon as possible. Appellant has not done so as of the date of this opinion.
Absent a timely notice of appeal, a timely motion to extend time, or the proper showing of compliance with the good faith requirement of Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997), the appellate jurisdiction of this court is not invoked. Appellant has not met any of these requirements. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.