Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
D’Etra R. Goodspeed-Hunter appealed a February 27, 2026 order granting Jackson Water Well Drilling & Service, LLC’s plea in bar and motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed all of Goodspeed-Hunter’s claims with prejudice.
Jackson moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Goodspeed-Hunter had not filed her notice of appeal on time. Even assuming her motion for reconsideration extended the appellate deadline to 90 days after the order was signed, the notice was due May 28, 2026. Goodspeed-Hunter filed it on July 9, 2026—42 days late.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Court of Appeals held that Goodspeed-Hunter’s notice of appeal was untimely. The court explained that, after the period for obtaining an extension under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3 has expired, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.
Because the filing deadline and the extension period had passed, the court granted Jackson’s motion and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court therefore did not address the merits of the district court’s dismissal order.
Key Takeaways
- A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a Texas appellate court’s jurisdiction.
- Even if Goodspeed-Hunter’s motion for reconsideration triggered the 90-day deadline, her notice of appeal was filed 42 days late.
- Once the period for seeking an extension has expired, an appellate court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the untimely appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that post-judgment motions do not create an indefinite window for appeal. Litigants must calculate the applicable deadline from the date the judgment or appealable order is signed and must seek any available extension within the period authorized by the appellate rules.