Full Opinion

Opinion issued August 25, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-26-00780-CV ——————————— PROVEER SENIOR LIVING, LLC, PROVEER HOLDINGS, LLC, AND MATTHEW THORNTON, Appellants V. SHOAL CREEK REALTY AND INVESTMENTS, Appellee On Appeal from the 295th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2023-84565 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants filed a notice of restricted appeal stating that it was accompanied by a “Motion for Extension of Time.” No separate motion was filed, and the notice of appeal itself provides no facts explaining the untimely filing. We construe Appellants’ filing as a motion for extension of time under Rule 26.3. Because Appellants have failed to satisfy the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we deny the motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The trial court signed the final judgment on January 14, 2026. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1(c), a notice of restricted appeal must be filed within six months after the judgment is signed. Accordingly, Appellants’ notice of restricted appeal was due on July 14, 2026. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(c). Appellants filed their notice of restricted appeal on July 29, 2026, fifteen days after the Rule 26.1(c) deadline. Rule 26.3 permits this Court to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if, within fifteen days after the deadline, the appellant files the notice of appeal in the trial court and files in the appellate court a motion for extension of time that complies with Rule 10.5(b). See id. 26.3. Rule 10.5(b) requires the motion to state, among other things, “the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension.” See id. 10.5(b)(1)(C), (b)(2)(A). A reasonable explanation is “any plausible statement of circumstances indicating that failure to file within the required period was not deliberate or intentional, but was the result of inadvertence, mistake, or mischance.” Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc., 774 S.W.2d 668, 669-70 (Tex. 1989). Although a notice of appeal filed within Rule 26.3’s fifteen-day grace period may imply a motion for extension of time, the appellant must still provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). 2 Here, Appellants’ purported motion consists solely of a statement in the notice of appeal that it is accompanied by a “Motion for Extension of Time pursuant to TRAP 26.3.” No separate motion appears in the record, nor does the notice of appeal contain any facts explaining or justifying the late filing. A bare request for an extension, unsupported by facts reasonably explaining the delay, does not satisfy Rule 10.5(b). See Chilkewitz v. Winter, 25 S.W.3d 382, 383-84 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) Because Appellants have provided no facts from which this Court could conclude that the untimely filing resulted from inadvertence, mistake, or mischance rather than a deliberate choice, they have failed to comply with Rule 10.5(b). Accordingly, Appellants are not entitled to an extension of time under Rule 26.3. We therefore deny Appellants’ motion for extension of time and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). PER CURIAM. Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Guiney. 3