In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-21-00071-CV ________________ JACOB SMITH, Appellant V. SAREN SMITH, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 128th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. A200493-D __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION On March 31, 2021, we notified the parties that the notice of appeal did not appear to have been timely filed. The appellant did not file a response.

In his notice of appeal, appellant stated that he was appealing the trial court’s order denying his motion for new trial, which was signed on February 25, 2021. An order denying a motion for new trial is not independently appealable; therefore, it does not start a new timetable for perfecting appeal. State Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Berdan, 335 S.W.3d 421, 428 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011, pet. denied). “An appeal must be taken from the final judgment, not the refusal to reconsider that judgment.” Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 01-19-00610-CV, 2019 WL 4677365, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 26, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). “[T]he time for filing a notice of appeal runs from the signing of the final judgment, not the subsequent denial of a motion for new trial.” Id. at *2.

The trial court signed a final judgment on November 3, 2020, and the appellate timetables were extended by the timely filing of a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Notice of appeal was due to be filed on February 1, 2021.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on March 26, 2021, more than ninety days from the date of judgment and outside the period for which we may grant an extension of time to perfect appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. This Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM Submitted on May 12, 2021 Opinion Delivered May 13, 2021 Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.