You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Barbara Peach v. Jose Alejandro Castillo & William Carter, Individually and as Representatives of Carter Transportation Services of Texas D/B/A Supershuttle of Austin, Inc. Carter Transporatation Services of Texas D/B/A Supershuttle of Austin, Inc. & Supershuttle Intern

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-06-00637-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; April 3, 2007; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Barbara Peach's appeal was dismissed due to untimeliness. The trial court's judgment was signed on June 29, 2006, with a notice of appeal due by July 31, 2006. Peach filed her notice on October 4, 2006, 97 days post-judgment, arguing she was entitled to a 90-day extension based on alleged late notice of the judgment and a request for findings of fact filed on August 2, 2006. However, the court found no evidence that Peach established late notice in the trial court, nor that the court had to provide findings since the case was jury-tried. Thus, Peach's request did not qualify for an extended appeal period. The court emphasized that the notice of appeal should have been filed within 30 days of the judgment, with a possible extension request within 15 days thereafter. Since Peach did not meet these deadlines, her appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, along with all pending motions.

Legal Issues Addressed

Extension of Appeal Period

Application: The appellant's argument for a 90-day extension based on late notice and a request for findings of fact was rejected by the court due to lack of evidence and procedural requirements.

Reasoning: Peach argued she was entitled to a 90-day extension based on alleged late notice of the judgment and a request for findings of fact filed on August 2, 2006. However, the court found no evidence that Peach established late notice in the trial court, nor that the court had to provide findings since the case was jury-tried.

Jurisdiction and Appeal Deadlines

Application: The court emphasized that the jurisdiction to hear the appeal was lost due to non-compliance with filing deadlines for the notice of appeal and extension requests.

Reasoning: The court emphasized that the notice of appeal should have been filed within 30 days of the judgment, with a possible extension request within 15 days thereafter. Since Peach did not meet these deadlines, her appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, along with all pending motions.

Timeliness of Appeal Notice

Application: The court dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to file the notice of appeal within the required time frame.

Reasoning: Barbara Peach's appeal was dismissed due to untimeliness. The trial court's judgment was signed on June 29, 2006, with a notice of appeal due by July 31, 2006. Peach filed her notice on October 4, 2006, 97 days post-judgment.