Baber v. LVNV Funding — Appeal dismissed because the notice of appeal was untimely

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

James Baber appealed a default judgment that the Bexar County Court at Law No. 3 signed on March 30, 2026. Because he did not file a motion for new trial or another motion extending the appellate timetable, his notice of appeal was due April 29, 2026, and any motion for an extension was due May 14, 2026.

Baber did not file his notice of appeal until August 10, 2026. Although he stated that he had not received timely notice of the default judgment, the clerk’s record did not show that he filed the sworn trial-court motion required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a(5). He also did not respond after the court of appeals ordered him to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court’s Holding

The Texas Fourth Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction because Baber’s notice of appeal was untimely. The court explained that when a party lacks timely notice of a judgment, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.2 and Rule of Civil Procedure 306a may reset appellate deadlines only if the party satisfies Rule 306a’s sworn-motion, notice, hearing, and proof requirements.

Because the record did not establish Baber’s compliance with Rule 306a, the rule’s additional-time provisions did not apply and the ordinary appellate deadlines remained controlling. The court noted that Baber’s pro se status did not excuse compliance with procedural rules and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Key Takeaways

• A notice of appeal must be filed within the applicable appellate timetable for the court of appeals to acquire jurisdiction.
• A party claiming late notice of a judgment must follow Rule 306a’s procedures, including filing a sworn motion in the trial court identifying when the party or counsel first learned of the judgment.
• Self-represented litigants are held to the same procedural rules and standards as licensed attorneys.

Why It Matters

Merely stating in a notice of appeal that the judgment was received late does not reset the appellate timetable. A litigant seeking relief based on delayed notice must create a trial-court record demonstrating compliance with Rule 306a.

The decision underscores that appellate deadlines are jurisdictional and that failure to invoke the late-notice procedure properly can foreclose appellate review of the underlying judgment.