the Branch Law Firm L.L.P and Turner W. Branch v. W. Shane Osborn
14-14-00892-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 1, 2015Background
- Petitioners (Hone and Falk & Fish, L.L.P.) sued Hanafin; the trial court sustained Hanafin’s special appearance on May 9 and later issued findings on May 17.
- Petitioners requested findings of fact and conclusions of law after the February hearing and allege they did not receive notice of the May 9 order until May 31.
- Petitioners filed a notice of interlocutory (accelerated) appeal on May 31 (twenty-two days after the May 9 order).
- The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, reasoning Petitioners failed to concede untimeliness and therefore could not obtain an implied extension under Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 and the Verburgt doctrine.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Rule 26.3/Rule 10.5(b) requires conceding untimeliness to obtain an extension and whether Petitioners’ explanations qualified as a "reasonable explanation."
- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding appellants need not admit untimeliness if they offer a plausible good-faith explanation and that an implied motion for extension may be recognized under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 26.3/10.5(b) requires conceding untimeliness to get an extension | Petitioners argued they had a plausible reason (request for findings; late receipt of order) and did not need to concede untimeliness | Hanafin argued the notice was filed late and, because Petitioners did not concede untimeliness, they could not satisfy Rule 26.3/10.5(b) | Court held plaintiffs need not concede untimeliness; a good‑faith, plausible explanation suffices |
| Whether filing a notice within the 15‑day post‑deadline can be treated as an implied motion for extension (Verburgt) | Petitioners relied on Verburgt and the timing to invoke an implied extension | Hanafin contested jurisdiction and timeliness despite Verburgt | Court affirmed that a late notice filed within the 15‑day window can be treated as an implied motion for extension under Verburgt |
| Whether a request for findings/conclusions extends the accelerated appeal deadline | Petitioners argued they could plausibly assume the request extended the deadline | Hanafin argued such a request does not extend the accelerated appellate deadline | Court did not decide definitively but held it was plausible for Petitioners to rely on that assumption; thus failure to concede untimeliness was not fatal |
| Whether untimeliness must be shown intentional to deny extension | Petitioners argued their lateness was inadvertent or based on confusion about the deadline | Hanafin implied lateness barred relief irrespective of motive | Court reiterated that absent deliberate noncompliance, courts should accept reasonable explanations (inadvertence, mistake, mischance) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hone v. Hanafin, 104 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. 2003) (holds appellant need not concede untimeliness; reasonable explanation suffice; reverses court of appeals)
- Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997) (recognizes implied motion for extension when notice is filed within Rule 26.3’s 15‑day window)
- Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc., 774 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1989) (applies Meshwert standard for "reasonable explanation" for late filing)
- Meshwert v. Meshwert, 549 S.W.2d 383 (Tex. 1977) (defines "reasonable explanation" as inadvertence, mistake, or mischance)
- National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Ninth Court of Appeals, 864 S.W.2d 58 (Tex. 1993) (rejects requiring an admission of mistake or confusion as prerequisite to reasonable‑explanation finding)