ARTHUR P. HOLDING, Appellant
BLACKBURNE & BROWN, Appellee
Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2016-12403
consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Higley.
Arthur P. Holding, attempts to appeal from both the trial
court's November 16, 2017 order denying his motion for
new trial and the August 24, 2017 agreed final judgment. We
dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the final
judgment is signed, but the deadline to file a notice of
appeal is extended to ninety days after the date the judgment
is signed if, within thirty days after the judgment is
signed, any party timely files a post-judgment motion.
See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a); Tex.R.Civ.P. 329b(a),
(g). The time to file a notice of appeal also may be extended
if, within fifteen days after the deadline to file the notice
of appeal, a party properly files a motion for extension in
this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 26.3;
Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 (Tex.
1997) (holding motion for extension of time is necessarily
implied when appellant, acting in good faith, files notice of
appeal beyond time allowed by Rule 26.1, but within
fifteen-day extension period under Rule 26.3). Even with an
implied extension the appellant must, however, offer a
reasonable explanation in this Court for failing to timely
file the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.
10.5(b)(1)(C), (b)(2)(A), 26.3(b); Hone v. Hanafin,
104 S.W.3d 884, 886-87 (Tex. 2003).
the letter of assignment indicates that appellant timely
filed a motion for new trial on September 25, 2017, within
thirty days of the August 24, 2017 judgment. See
Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a); Tex.R.App.P. 4.1(a). Although
appellant's notice of appeal claims to be appealing from
both the judgment and the November 16, 2017 order denying the
motion for new trial, "[a]n order denying a motion for
new trial is not independently appealable." Fletcher
v. Ahrabi, No. 01-12-00794-CV, 2012 WL 6082915, at *1
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 6, 2012, no pet.) (per
curiam) (mem. op.) (citation omitted). "Unless a statute
authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts
generally only have jurisdiction over final judgments."
CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011).
the deadline to file the notice of appeal did not run from
the date of the order denying the motion for new trial, but
from the date the trial court signed the judgment on August
24, 2017. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1);
Mulhall v. Anderson, No. 01-16-00067-CV, 2016 WL
6087691, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 18, 2016,
no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (citations omitted).
Appellant's motion for new trial only extended his
deadline for filing his notice of appeal for ninety days
after the August 24, 2017 judgment was signed, or November
22, 2017, or with the 15-day grace period by December 7th.
See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1), 26.3.
Appellant's appeal was filed on December 14, 2017.
Court's January 30, 2018 Order and Notice of Intent to
Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction notified appellant that his
appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction
unless he filed a written response showing how this Court has
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant
filed a response conceding that his "Notice of Appeal
was untimely filed by one week" on December 14, 2017.
But appellant contends that the late filing was an
"inadvertent mistake" because his "reliance on
the outcome of the Motion for New Trial and further mistaken
reliance on the 30 days subsequent to the denial of the MNT
explains the late filing, " which he claims invoked this
as noted above, appellant's deadline to file his notice
of appeal did not run thirty days from the date of the order
denying the motion for new trial, but ninety days from the
August 24, 2017 final judgment. See Mulhall, 2016 WL
6087691, at *1 (citations omitted). Once the fifteen-day
extension period for filing a notice of appeal passed without
filing a notice of appeal, a party can no longer invoke this
Court's jurisdiction and no extension can be implied.
See Naaman v. Grider, 126 S.W.3d 73, 74 (Tex. 2003)
(citing Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 615).
notice of appeal, filed on December 14, 2017, was untimely.
Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court can take
no action other than to dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1, 26.1(a)(1),
26.3(b); 26.3(b); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617-18;
see also Cartmill v. Cartmill, No. 14-06-00583-CV,
2006 WL 2164721, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Aug.
3, 2006, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.).
we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending
motions as moot.
 On February 20, 2018, appellee filed a
response in opposition to appellant's ...