Bahar v. Baumann
In Bahar v. Baumann, No. 03-09-00691-CV, 2011 WL 4424294 (Tex. App.--Austin 2011, pet. denied), after several discovery disputes, the trial court sanctioned Valerie Thomas Bahar's attorneys.
On November 30, 2009, Bahar timely filed a notice of appeal, which listed her as the only appellant. Id. Subsequently, on July 12, 2010, her attorneys filed an "Amended Notice of Appeal," which, for the first time, listed them as appellants, in addition to Bahar. Id.
The attorneys agreed with the Austin Court of Appeals that in order for it to have jurisdiction over their appeal "they had to be named as appellants in a timely filed notice of appeal."
They argued, however, "that this requirement was met because the 'Amended Notice of Appeal' filed July 12, 2010 related back to the filing date of Bahar's original timely filed notice of appeal" and "the failure of the original notice of appeal to name them as appellants was a simple omission correctable by amendment." Id.; see also Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(g) (allowing amendment of notice of appeal).
The court disagreed, holding that the attorneys could not "rely on the November 30, 2009 original notice of appeal filed by their client to establish that they timely perfected their appeal."
In doing so, the court concluded that rule 25.1(g) could not be used to untimely add an additional appellant to a previously timely filed notice of appeal.
Accordingly, because neither the original notice of appeal, naming Bahar as the only appellant, nor the amended notice of appeal, naming Bahar's attorneys as additional appellants, qualified as a timely notice of appeal for the attorneys, the court had to dismiss the attorneys' appeal and could not address its merits.