Opinion
05-24-00370-CV
07-10-2024
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 001-04378-2021
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Pedersen, III, and Justice Carlyle
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
Appellant appeals from the trial court's October 12, 2022 judgment and the December 14, 2023 post-judgment order appointing a receiver. We questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal because it appeared the notice of appeal was untimely. See Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh'g) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional). At our request, appellant filed a jurisdictional letter brief.
Appellant did not file a timely post-judgment motion extending appellate deadlines following either the October 2022 judgment or the December 2023 order. Accordingly, the notice of appeal from the October 2022 judgment was due no later than November 11, 2022 or, with an extension motion, November 28, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a) (extending deadline if due date falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday), 26.1 (providing thirty-day deadline for filing notice of appeal), 26.3 (providing for fifteen-day extension of time to file notice of appeal). And, the notice of appeal from the December 2023 order was due no later than January 16, 2024 or, with an extension motion, January 31, 2024. See id. Appellant filed a notice of appeal of both the judgment and order on March 22, 2024.
In her letter brief, appellant does not dispute that she did not timely appeal either the October 2022 judgment or the December 2023 order. Instead, she addresses the merits the judgment that led to the receivership order and requests that we "agree to jurisdiction." None of her arguments demonstrate our jurisdiction over this appeal. See Texas Disposal Sys. Landfill, Inc. v. Travis Cent. Appraisal Dist. by & through Crigler, No. 22-0620, 2024 WL 3076317, at *5 (Tex. June 21, 2024) (parties cannot establish jurisdiction by agreement).
Based on the record before us, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. 42.3(a); Brashear, 302 S.W.3d at 545.
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.