Coffee v. Coffee

6 Citing cases

  1. Stevenson v. Lovell Invs.

    No. 03-23-00760-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 27, 2024)

    Because appellants' motion for new trial was untimely, it did not operate to extend the deadline for filing their notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a); Coffee v. Coffee, No. 03-16-00466-CV, 2016 Tex.App. LEXIS 8651, at * 1-2 (Tex. App.-Austin Aug. 11, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  2. Zen Ventures, LLC v. Propel Fin. Servs.

    No. 01-23-00324-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 25, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    See Hartley v. Esquire Deposition, No. 01-17-00508-CV, 2018 WL 1720670, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 10, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); Coffee v. Coffee, No. 03-16-00466-CV, 2016 WL 4272122, at *1 (Tex. App.-Austin Aug. 11, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.);

  3. Martinez v. Olmos

    NUMBER 13-18-00650-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 9, 2020)

    Martinez filed a notice of appeal on November 14, 2018, and it is indisputably late. See In re Thompson, 569 S.W.3d 169, 173 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, orig. proceeding) (holding that the defendant's method of directly attacking the earlier judgment in the underlying case via a motion to set aside the default judgment was no longer available to the defendant because the trial court's plenary power had expired); Nedd-Johnson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 338 S.W.3d 612, 613 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (dismissing an appeal for want of jurisdiction where the appellant filed an untimely motion for new trial following a default judgment); see also Hartley v. Esquire Deposition, No. 01-17-00508-CV, 2018 WL 1720670, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 10, 2018, no pet.) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction where motion for new trial was untimely filed and thus, did not extend appellant's deadline for filing a notice of appeal); Coffee v. Coffee, No. 03-16-00466-CV, 2016 WL 4272122, at *1 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 11, 2016, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (same). We further note that Martinez did not file a Rule 306a motion.

  4. Nevarez Law Firm, P.C. v. Inv'r Land Servs.

    No. 08-20-00094-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 26, 2020)

    A motion for new trial filed after the 30-day deadline set by Rule 329b does not extend the appellate timetable for filing a notice of appeal. See Coffee v. Coffee, No. 03-16-00466-CV, 2016 WL 4272122, at *1 (Tex.App.—Austin Aug. 11, 2016, no pet.)(mem. op.); Gilani v. Kaempfe, 331 S.W.3d 879, 879 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.)(dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction after concluding that appellant's motion for new trial filed 31 days after signing of judgment was untimely and failed to extend appellate timetable).

  5. Hartley v. Deposition

    NO. 01-17-00508-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 10, 2018)   Cited 5 times
    Dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction where motion for new trial was untimely filed and thus, did not extend appellant's deadline for filing a notice of appeal

    Because the motion was not timely, it did not extend the deadline for filing the notice of appeal; rather, the notice of appeal remained due 30 days after the judgment was signed on April 17, 2017. See, e.g., Stroman v. Martinez, No. 01-14-00991-CV, 2015 WL 1926015, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 28, 2015, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (granting appellee's motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction because untimely motion for rehearing and new trial did not extend deadline for filing notice of appeal) (citation omitted); see also Coffee v. Coffee, No. 03-16-00466-CV, 2016 WL 4272122, at *1 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 11, 2016, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because district court did not need to consider untimely motion for new trial, making notice of appeal untimely). Accordingly, Hartley's July 7, 2017 notice of appeal, filed 81 days after the judgment, was untimely.

  6. Walker v. Safari Kids Learning Ctr.

    NO. 01-16-00613-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 29, 2016)

    The trial court did not have to consider or rule on Walker's untimely motion for new trial, which also did not extend the deadline for filing her notice of appeal, which remained June 13, 2016. See, e.g., Stroman v. Martinez, No. 01-14-00991-CV, 2015 WL 1926015, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 28, 2015, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (granting appellee's motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction because untimely motion for rehearing and new trial did not extend deadline for filing notice of appeal) (citation omitted); Powell v. Linh Nutrition Programs, Inc., No. 01-03-00919-CV, 2005 WL 375334, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 17, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that deadline for appealing from trial court's order denying motion for new trial runs from date of signing of final judgment, not from date of order denying motion for new trial); see also Coffee v. Coffee, No. 03-16-00466-CV, 2016 WL 4272122, at *1 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 11, 2016, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because district court did not need to consider untimely motion for new trial, making notice of appeal untimely). Walker untimely filed her notice of appeal on August 4, 2016.