Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Nancy Alexander v. Venture Property

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 08-26-00025-CV
• Nature of Suit: Forcible entry & detainer

• Disposition: Dismissed

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Dismissed

Lead Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
————————————

No. 08-26-00025-CV
————————————

Nancy Alexander, Appellant

v.

Venture Property, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Bastrop County, Texas
Trial Court No. 25-22837

M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N

On December 9, 2025, Appellant filed a notice of appeal in the above-styled and numbered

cause with the District Clerk of Bastrop County, Texas, in an attempt to perfect his appeal from a

judgment entered on October 27, 2025. That notice was filed late but was filed within 15 days of

the deadline for the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. We noted in our order dated February
20, 2026, that a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal is necessarily implied when

an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure, but within the 15-day grace period. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d

615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

However, in the same order, we also informed Appellant that his notice of appeal but did

not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.3 and 10.5(b) because he did not file a

motion for extension identifying the trial court, case number, the style of the case, the date of the

judgment or other appealable order, the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, and the facts relied

on to reasonably explain the need for an extension. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(1)–(2); Tex. R.

App. P. 26.3; In re O.Z.O., No. 14-14-00768-CV, 2015 WL 5093198, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] Aug. 27, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“To benefit from Verburgt, an appellant must offer

a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner.”); see also Batra

v. Covenant Health Sys., 562 S.W.3d 696, 705 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2018, pet. denied) (“[I]t is

still necessary for an appellant to reasonably explain the need for an extension.”) (citing Jones v.

City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998)).

We ordered that Appellant file a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal

that met the requirements of Rule 10.5(b) by March 2, 2026, and cautioned Appellant that failure

to do so could result in dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

Appellant has failed to file a motion for extension.

We dismiss the Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See In re O.Z.O., 2015 WL

5093198, at *1 (“If the appellant does not file a reasonable explanation, we must dismiss the appeal

for want of jurisdiction.”); In re K.M.Z., 178 S.W.3d 432, 433–34 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005,

no pet.) (dismissing the appeal because appellant did not provide reason for the extension).

2
MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice

March 6, 2026

Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.

3