Bradley Young v. Selene Finance LP, as Mortgage Servicer for MCLP Asset Company, Inc., the Current Mortgagee

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 14, 2024
Docket09-24-00001-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Bradley Young v. Selene Finance LP, as Mortgage Servicer for MCLP Asset Company, Inc., the Current Mortgagee (Bradley Young v. Selene Finance LP, as Mortgage Servicer for MCLP Asset Company, Inc., the Current Mortgagee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bradley Young v. Selene Finance LP, as Mortgage Servicer for MCLP Asset Company, Inc., the Current Mortgagee, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00001-CV __________________

BRADLEY YOUNG, Appellant

V.

SELENE FINANCE LP, AS MORTGAGE SERVICER FOR MCLP ASSET COMPANY, INC., THE CURRENT MORTGAGEE, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 457th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23-12-19135-CV __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 29, 2023, Bradley Young filed a notice of appeal in Trial Cause

Number 23-12-19135-CV. The notice of appeal complained that on Friday,

December 29, 2023, Young had been unable to locate a judge to sign a temporary

restraining order to prevent a non-judicial foreclosure sale on Tuesday, January 2,

2024. We notified the parties that the notice of appeal did not identify a final

judgment or an appealable order, and we warned the parties that the appeal would

1 be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless the Court received a response showing a

ground for continuing the appeal.

Generally, in civil cases appellate courts review only final judgments and

interlocutory orders specifically made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An appeal from an interlocutory order may

proceed as an accelerated appeal “when allowed by statute[.]” See Tex. R. App. P.

28.1. We granted an extension of time until February 9, 2024, to file a response, but

Young failed to file a response or identify a final judgment or a written order from

which an appeal is authorized by law. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction. See id. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 13, 2024 Opinion Delivered March 14, 2024

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bradley Young v. Selene Finance LP, as Mortgage Servicer for MCLP Asset Company, Inc., the Current Mortgagee, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-young-v-selene-finance-lp-as-mortgage-servicer-for-mclp-asset-texapp-2024.