Opinion
No. 05-14-00465-CV
05-29-2014
DALLAS WAYNE SCOTT, Appellant v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, Appellee
Dismiss and Opinion Filed May 29, 2014
On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-02-04248
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Brown
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
By notice of appeal filed April 15, 2014, appellant challenges a November 20, 2009 judgment. Because the notice of appeal was filed outside any of the time frames listed in rule of appellate procedure 26, which governs the time to perfect appeals, we directed appellant to file a letter brief explaining how the Court had jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3. Although more than ten days have passed since we requested the letter brief, appellant has not filed the brief or otherwise communicated with the Court.
Our jurisdiction is invoked upon the timely filing of a notice of appeal from a final judgment. Lehman v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Garza v. Hibernia Nat'l Bank, 227 S.W.3d 233, 233 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Generally, the deadline to file a notice of appeal runs from the date of judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1; see also id. 4.2 (providing that if notice of judgment is not received within twenty days after judgment is signed, deadline runs from date notice is received but no later than ninety days from signing of judgment). Rule 26.1 provides four time frames for filing a notice of appeal. See id. 26.1. These time frames are based on the type of judgment or order being appealed and range from twenty days in an accelerated appeal to six months in a restricted appeal. See id. Additionally, rule 26.3 provides for one fifteen-day extension of time. See id. 26.3.
Based on the time frames listed in rule 26, the notice of appeal here, filed more than four years after the complained-of judgment, is untimely and fails to invoke our jurisdiction. See Garza, 227 S.W.3d 233. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 140565F.P05
__________
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGMENT
DALLAS WAYNE SCOTT, Appellant
V. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, Appellee No. 05-14-00465-CV
On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-02-04248.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright.
Justices Lang-Miers and Brown
participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER that appellee Washington Mutual Bank recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Dallas Wayne Scott.
__________
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE