In the Interest of K.M.C., a Child, 05-25-01528-CV, February 17, 2026.
On appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Synopsis
The Dallas Court of Appeals dismissed this SAPCR appeal for lack of jurisdiction following the appellant’s failure to comply with a court order to file a motion to extend time. Although the notice of appeal was filed within the fifteen-day grace period, the appellant’s failure to formalize the extension request—even after receiving a specific deficiency notice—precluded the court from exercising jurisdiction over the merits.
Relevance to Family Law
In Texas family law litigation, particularly in Suits Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR), the finality of orders is paramount. While the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide a fifteen-day “grace period” for late notices of appeal under Rule 26.3, this case serves as a stark reminder that this window is not self-executing. For the practitioner, a missed deadline on a custody or property division appeal cannot be cured by the mere act of filing a late notice; it requires a formal motion and a “reasonable explanation.” Failure to follow these technical requirements, especially after a court directive, will result in an immediate dismissal, potentially exposing trial counsel to significant liability and leaving the client without recourse.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The appellant sought to challenge a judgment rendered by the 330th Judicial District Court in a SAPCR matter. The notice of appeal was not filed within the standard deadlines prescribed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1. However, the filing did occur within the fifteen-day extension period authorized by Rule 26.3. On January 9, 2026, the Court of Appeals notified the appellant of this jurisdictional defect by letter. The court’s correspondence explicitly directed the appellant to file a formal motion to extend time no later than January 20, 2026, and cautioned that a failure to do so would likely result in the dismissal of the appeal without further notice. The appellant failed to file the motion and did not otherwise communicate with the court regarding the status of the appeal.
Issues Decided
Whether the appellate court maintains jurisdiction over an appeal when the notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen-day extension window but the appellant fails to file a motion to extend time as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and a specific court order.
Rules Applied
The court relied on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, which establishes the timelines for perfecting an appeal, and Rule 26.3, which allows for an extension of time if the notice and a motion for extension are filed within fifteen days of the deadline. The court further applied Rule 42.3(a) and (c), which permit involuntary dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to comply with a court order or notice from the clerk. Finally, the court cited Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. 2022), reaffirming that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite.
Application
The court’s analysis centered on the intersection of jurisdictional requirements and procedural compliance. Under the Verburgt doctrine, a motion for extension of time is implied when a party acting in good faith files a notice of appeal within the fifteen-day grace period. However, this “implied motion” does not relieve the appellant of the obligation to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay when prompted by the court. Here, the Court of Appeals explicitly signaled the jurisdictional defect and provided a clear remedy: the filing of a formal motion to extend time. By ignoring the court’s January 9th directive, the appellant effectively abandoned the appeal. The court reasoned that since the appellant failed to provide the necessary procedural foundation to justify the late filing, the court never acquired jurisdiction over the cause.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court determined that the filing of a notice of appeal within the Rule 26.3 window, standing alone, is insufficient to confer jurisdiction if the appellant subsequently fails to comply with a court order to file a motion to extend time.
The court further held that dismissal was appropriate under Rule 42.3 because the appellant failed to respond to a formal notice from the Clerk and failed to comply with a specific deadline set by the court to cure a jurisdictional defect.
Practical Application
For the family law litigator, this opinion highlights the danger of relying on the court’s leniency regarding “implied” motions. If a notice of appeal is filed late—even by one day—the practitioner should file a standalone Motion to Extend Time simultaneously with the notice of appeal. This motion must offer a “reasonable explanation,” which the Texas Supreme Court has defined broadly as any reason indicating the failure to file was not deliberate or the result of conscious indifference. Waiting for the court to issue a deficiency notice is a high-stakes gamble; if you receive such a notice, the response must be treated as an emergency filing to preserve the client’s appellate rights.
Checklists
Perfecting an Appeal During the Grace Period
- Verify the exact date the judgment was signed and calculate the 30-day (or 90-day) deadline.
- If the deadline has passed but you are within the 15-day window, draft the Notice of Appeal immediately.
- Draft a Motion to Extend Time (Rule 26.3) providing a “reasonable explanation” for the delay.
- File both the Notice and the Motion in the Court of Appeals simultaneously.
- Ensure the filing fee or a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs is submitted to avoid further delays.
Managing Appellate Deficiency Notices
- Designate a specific staff member to monitor the appellate portal for letters from the Clerk of the Court.
- Calendar any court-ordered deadlines for jurisdictional motions with multiple internal reminders.
- If a “Reasonable Explanation” for a late filing is required, ensure it addresses the standard of “not deliberate or the result of conscious indifference.”
- Communicate with the appellate clerk if there is any ambiguity regarding the court’s directive.
Citation
In the Interest of K.M.C., a Child, No. 05-25-01528-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 17, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~807d36df-f8ac-4bdf-b7c4-3255d780a86d~~
Share this content: