Opinion
14-23-00716-CV
11-09-2023
PRESTON WOOTEN AND CHERYL WOOTEN, Appellants v. KREISSPARKASSE BOEBLINGEN, Appellees
On Appeal from the 333rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2022-73883
Panel Consists of Justices Hassan, Poissant, and Wilson.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
This is an appeal from a final order granting an application to domesticate a foreign-country judgment, signed June 27, 2023. As a motion essentially requesting a new trial was timely filed, the notice of appeal was due September 25, 2023. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). Appellants, however, filed the notice of appeal on September 26, 2023, 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, appellants are still obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Ctr. Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).
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 appellants fail to do so, the appeal is subject to dismissal without further notice for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).