Background
WBL SPO I, LLC sought to appeal a partial summary judgment that the trial court signed on June 17, 2026. Because the order was interlocutory, it was not appealable as a final judgment, and the order did not grant WBL permission to pursue a permissive interlocutory appeal.
On July 2, 2026, WBL filed only a motion asking the court of appeals to extend the time to file a petition for permissive appeal, stating that it needed additional time to obtain the trial court’s permission. The appellate clerk notified WBL that its motion did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.3 and warned that the proceeding would be dismissed unless the defect was cured within ten days. WBL neither responded nor corrected the defect.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction over WBL’s motion and attempted appeal. The partial summary judgment was interlocutory, the trial court had not authorized a permissive appeal, and the record did not show that the trial court later signed an amended order granting permission.
The court further held that it could not extend the filing deadline. Rule 28.3(d) required WBL both to file its petition within fifteen days after the original deadline and to file a compliant extension motion. Although WBL filed an extension motion, it did not file the required petition within the permitted period. The court therefore dismissed both the motion and the attempted appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- An interlocutory order cannot be pursued through a permissive appeal unless the trial court grants permission to appeal.
- A party seeking a permissive appeal must timely file the petition required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.3; an extension motion alone is insufficient.
- An untimely or unfiled petition for permissive appeal does not invoke the court of appeals’ jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Texas’s procedural requirements for permissive interlocutory appeals are jurisdictional and strictly enforced. A party cannot preserve appellate review merely by requesting more time while attempting to secure trial-court permission.
Practitioners seeking permissive review should ensure that the trial court’s order expressly authorizes the appeal and should file the appellate petition—and any necessary extension motion—within Rule 28.3’s deadlines.