Opinion
01-22-00693-CV
11-01-2022
LISETTE MAHLER, Appellant v. DANIEL BELLINI, Appellee
On Appeal from the 333rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2021-28120
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Countiss, and Farris.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Lisette Mahler, filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's purported denial of her motion for new trial.
The trial court did not sign an order denying appellant's motion for new trial. Appellant's motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law on July 5, 2022. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 4 ("Computation of Time"), 329b(c) (motion for new trial is overruled by operation of law if trial court does not sign order ruling on motion within seventy-five days after judgment is signed).
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the trial court signs its judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended to ninety days after the judgment is signed if, within thirty days after the judgment is signed, a party timely files a motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or, under certain circumstances, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b. The time to file a notice of appeal may also be extended if, within fifteen days after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, a party files a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b). See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 26.3.
Here, the trial court signed its final judgment on April 20, 2022, and appellant timely filed a motion for new trial. Accordingly, any notice of appeal was due to be filed on or before July 19, 2022-or by August 3, 2022, with a fifteen-day extension. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1), 26.3. Appellant filed her notice of appeal on September 23, 2022. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction over an appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1; Gantt v. Gantt, 208 S.W.3d 27, 30 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (untimely notice of appeal fails to invoke jurisdiction of appellate court and dismissal of appeal required).
Additionally, we note that this Court generally has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and specific interlocutory orders that the Legislature has designated as appealable orders. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.012; CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447-48 (Tex. 2011); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). As noted above, appellant states that she is appealing from the trial court's purported denial of her motion for new trial. However, "[n]o appeal from an order denying a motion for new trial exists separately from an appeal of the underlying judgment." Cornwell v. Cornwell, No. 02-17-00105-CV, 2017 WL 6759031, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Dec. 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Sogo Indus., LLC v. Tarquin Polymers & Colors, Inc., No. 01-20-00200-CV, 2021 WL 2654140, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 29, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); Macklin v. Saia Motor Freight Lines, Inc., No. 06-12-00038-CV, 2012 WL 1155141, at *1 (Tex. App.-Texarkana Apr. 6, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction because "order denying a motion for reconsideration or motion for new trial is not a judgment, and is not independently appealable"). Thus, we also lack jurisdiction to consider appellant's appeal of the trial court's purported denial of her motion for new trial because an order denying a motion for new trial "is not independently appealable." See Sogo Indus., LLC, 2021 WL 2654140, at *1-2 (internal quotations omitted); Macklin, 2012 WL 1155141, at *1.
On October 13, 2022, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that her appeal was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction unless, by October 24, 2022, appellant filed a written response demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction over her appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant did not adequately respond.
Accordingly, we dismiss appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.