Opinion
14-24-00739-CV
11-21-2024
JAMALUDDIN INVESTMENTS, LLC AND DR. AHMED U.JAMALUDDIN, Appellants v. GEORGIO KANOUFF, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1186524
Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 4, 2024. Appellants timely filed a post judgment motion. The notice of appeal was due September 3, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellants, however, filed the notice of appeal on September 16, 2024 a date within 15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when the perfecting instrument is filed within 15 days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellants did not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant is still obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).
Appellee filed a notice of "cross" appeal on September 17, 2024. Appellee's notice of "cross" appeal will be deemed timely filed if appellants comply with this order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(d). Alternatively, because appellee's notice of "cross" appeal was filed within 15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal, appellee may move to extend the time to file a notice of appeal.
Accordingly, we order appellants to file a proper motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal within ten (10) days of the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3;10.5(b). If neither appellee nor appellants file a proper motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal, the appeal is subject to dismissal without further notice for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).