Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin), 2025

Frederick Barcase v. Iriaquez Ironworks, LLC A/K/A Lakeway Ironworks, LLC

Frederick Barcase v. Iriaquez Ironworks, LLC A/K/A Lakeway Ironworks, LLC
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Decided January 8, 2025
Frederick Barcase v. Iriaquez Ironworks, LLC A/K/A Lakeway Ironworks, LLC

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00741-CV

Frederick Barcase, Appellant v. Iriaquez Ironworks, LLC a/k/a Lakeway Ironworks, LLC, Appellee

FROM THE 395TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 24-0068-C395, THE HONORABLE RYAN D. LARSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O RAN D U M O PI N I O N

On November 7, 2024, Frederick Barcase filed a notice of appeal, attempting to appeal from the trial court’s July 1, 2024 final judgment entered after a no-answer default judgment. Because the order was signed on July 1, 2024, and Barcase timely filed his motion for new trial on July 31, 2024, the deadline for him to file his notice of appeal was on or before September 30, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a) (setting deadline to file notice of appeal within ninety days after judgment is signed when party timely files motion for new trial); id. R. 4.1(a) (providing rule for computing deadlines when last day of period falls on weekend or holiday).

However, Barcase’s notice of appeal was not filed until November 7, 2024. Although this Court may grant a 15-day extension, the notice of appeal was also filed outside the extension period. See id. R. 26.3 (authorizing appellate court to extend deadline to file notice of appeal by fifteen days).

On December 10, 2024, the Clerk of this Court advised Barcase that his appeal appeared to be untimely, requested a response from him on or before December 23, 2024, explaining how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over his appeal, and informed him that his appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless he timely responded and demonstrated jurisdiction. On December 19, Barcase responded through counsel and agreed that his appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Because Barcase did not file his notice of appeal timely, we do not have jurisdiction over his appeal. See id. R. 25.1(b) (providing that filing notice of appeal invokes appellate court’s jurisdiction); see also id. R. 2 (prohibiting appellate court from altering the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case). Thus, we dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________ Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice Before Justices Triana, Theofanis, and Crump Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: January 8, 2025

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.