Samuel Ferreira and Luciene de Castro v. First Preference Mortgage, Corp.; CitiMortgage, Inc.; and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

No. 02-16-00037-CV · Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth · April 14, 2016 · No. No. 02-16-00037-CV

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Second District, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellants filed an untimely motion for reconsideration and an untimely notice of appeal from a final judgment, so the motion did not extend the appellate deadline and the trial court lacked plenary power to modify the judgment.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Livingston, C.J.; Dauphinot, J.; Gardner, J.
Jurisdiction
Texas
Decision date
April 14, 2016
Docket number
No. 02-16-00037-CV
Procedural posture
Appellants attempted to appeal the denial of their untimely verified motion for reconsideration seeking a new trial after the trial court entered a final judgment dismissing their claims.
Standard of review
The appellate court independently determined whether it had jurisdiction based on the timeliness of the notice of appeal and the motion for new trial.
Precedential value
unpublished memorandum opinion
Parties
Samuel Ferreira, Luciene de Castro v. First Preference Mortgage, Corp., CitiMortgage, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

appellate jurisdictionappellate proceduremotion for new trialmotion for reconsiderationcivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedurereal estate

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction when appellants filed their notice of appeal more than thirty days after the final judgment and did not file a timely motion for new trial or motion to modify the judgment.
  2. Whether appellants could obtain appellate review of the trial court’s denial of their untimely motion for reconsideration seeking a new trial.

Holdings

  1. A motion seeking a new trial or modification of a final judgment must be filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed; an untimely motion does not extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal or preserve the trial court’s plenary power.
  2. The court of appeals must dismiss for want of jurisdiction when the notice of appeal is untimely and no timely extension request has been filed.
  3. An order overruling an untimely motion for new trial cannot serve as the basis for appellate review.

Key quotations

Appellants Samuel Ferreira and Luciene de Castro attempt to appeal from the trial court’s order denying their verified motion for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal. (1)
The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and absent a timely-filed notice of appeal or extension request, we must dismiss the appeal. (3)

Factual background

The trial court signed a final judgment dismissing appellants’ claims against First Preference Mortgage Corp. with prejudice and indicating that the judgment disposed of all claims against all parties. Appellants filed their motion for reconsideration more than thirty days after the judgment and filed their notice of appeal more than thirty days after the judgment. The trial court advised appellants that the motion was untimely and that its plenary power had expired.

Procedural history

The trial court signed a final judgment on September 18, 2015, stating that it was final and disposed of all claims against all parties. Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration seeking a new trial on November 30, 2015, more than thirty days after the judgment, and the trial court denied it on January 7, 2016. Appellants filed a notice of appeal on January 28, 2016. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal after determining that the notice of appeal was untimely and that the denial of the untimely new-trial motion was not independently appealable.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Texas Court Of Appeals Of Texas Second District Fort Worth