Date: 11-26-2022

Case Style:

Yassy Hernandez Terreforte v. Irwing Onix Gonzalez

Case Number: 02-22-00349-CV

Judge: Elizabeth Kerr

Court:

Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

On appeal from the

Plaintiff's Attorney: Fort Worth, Texas - Best Divorce Lawyer Directory

target="_new"> Fort Worth, Texas - Best Divorce Lawyer Directory

Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement

Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.

MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge

Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Defendant's Attorney: Armando Flores

Description:

Fort Worth, Texas – Divorce lawyer represented Appellant with appealing from the trial court’s August 2, 2022 “Agreed Final Decree of Divorce.”.

.

Yassy Hernandez Terreforte attempts to appeal from the trial court’s August 2,
2022 “Agreed Final Decree of Divorce.” Because Terreforte did not file a
postjudgment motion extending the appellate deadline, her notice of appeal was due
September 1, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. But Terreforte did not file her notice of
appeal until September 2, 2022, making it untimely. See id.
On September 6, 2022, we wrote to notify the parties of our concern that we
lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely filed. See
id. We warned that we could dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless
Terreforte or any party wanting to continue the appeal filed a response by September
16, 2022, showing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.
See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b), 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We have received no response.
The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and without
a timely filed notice of appeal or a timely filed extension request, we must dismiss the
appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.1, 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d
676, 677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). A motion
for extension of time is necessarily implied when, as here, an appellant acting in good
faith files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the 15-
day period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing
deadline under Rule 26.3. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; see
also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3. But even when an extension motion is implied, the
3
appellant still must reasonably explain the need for an extension.

Outcome: Because Terreforte’s notice of appeal was untimely and because Terreforte did
not provide a reasonable explanation for needing an extension, we dismiss this appeal
for want of jurisdiction

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: