Rufina Reyes Yanez v. American General Life Insurance Company
04-15-00548-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 24, 2015Background
- Appellant (Reyes Yanez) sought to appeal a trial-court summary judgment entered May 13, 2015 that dismissed all her claims with prejudice in favor of American General Life Insurance Co. (Appellee).
- Appellant filed a motion for new trial on June 5, 2015; the trial court denied that motion on July 20, 2015.
- Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on September 3, 2015—after the 90-day deadline running from the May 13 judgment (deadline August 11, 2015).
- Appellant also filed a belated Motion for Extension of Time and later filed a Motion to Reinstate Appeal and a three‑paragraph supplement; the court issued an order dismissing the appeal on October 28, 2015.
- Appellee argues the appeal was untimely, that the July 20 order denying the motion for new trial is not a separate final judgment that resets appellate deadlines, and that Appellant’s post-dismissal filings were untimely and lacked legal basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction because notice of appeal was timely | Appellant contends the final order to appeal was the July 20, 2015 order denying her motion for new trial, making her September 3 notice timely | Appellee: final, appeal-triggering judgment was May 13, 2015; notice filed Sept. 3 was late (deadline Aug. 11) | Court lacks jurisdiction because notice was untimely; appeal dismissal stands |
| Whether an untimely notice can be remedied or amended under Rule 25.1(g) | Appellant relied on Rule 25.1(g) to justify amendment/reinstatement of appeal | Appellee: Rule 25.1(g) allows amendment only for defects in a timely notice; it does not cure a late filing | Amendment unavailable because initial notice was not timely, so reinstatement fails |
| Whether appellant’s post‑dismissal Motion to Reinstate was timely and procedurally proper | Appellant filed a Motion to Reinstate and a supplement after dismissal, arguing excusable neglect and meritorious appeal | Appellee: motion was filed after the rehearing deadline, was the wrong procedural vehicle, and lacked supporting authority | Motion was untimely and procedurally improper; court should deny reinstatement |
| Whether appellant’s claimed excusable reasons (illness, busy counsel, merits) justify reinstatement | Appellant asserts counsel’s illness and workload prevented timely filings and that the appeal has merit | Appellee: no extension requested, appellant ignored court’s show‑cause order, and opposing party should not bear burden for counsel’s priorities | Excusable reasons insufficient; failure to seek extension or comply with court order fatal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. 2005) (appellate jurisdiction requires timely filing of an instrument in a bona fide attempt to invoke jurisdiction)
- Ex parte Matthews, 452 S.W.3d 8 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (failure to file timely notice of appeal defeats appellate jurisdiction)
- Sweed v. Nye, 323 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. 2010) (a defective notice of appeal may be amended only if it was timely filed)
- Warwick Towers Council of Co‑Owners v. Park Warwick, LP, 244 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. 2008) (right to cure defects in a notice of appeal depends on timely filing)